Preamble

The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into not complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have not been complied with, namely:

Winchester Water and Gas Bill.

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Private Bills [lords] (Substituted Bills).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in respect of the following Bills, introduced pursuant to the Provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, and which the Chairman of Ways and Means had directed to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with, namely:

Grampian Electricity Supply Bill (Substituted Bill).

Galloway Water Power Bill (Substituted Bill).

West Highland Water Power Bill (Substituted Bill).

Private Bills (Substituted Bill).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, introduced pursuant to the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Glasgow Corporation Bill (Substituted Bill).

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time tomorrow.

London and North Eastern Railway (Air Transport, Scotland) Bill,

London, Midland and Scottish Railway (Air Transport, Scotland) Bill,

To be read a Second time upon Friday.

Methodist Church Union (Scotland) Bill, Windermere Urban District Council Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed. Metropolitan Railway Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday. Southern Motor Road (Petition for Bill), Order [7th February] that the Report of one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills upon the Petition for the Southern Motor Road Bill be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders read, and discharged.—Petition for Bill withdrawn.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-ENEMY PROPERTY.

Mr. WELLOCK: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total sum that has been credited to Germany under the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles for dyeing and chemical interests held by her nationals in this country at the outbreak of the Great War?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I regret that it is not possible to give the figure asked for by the hon. Member, as no separate record has been kept of credits given in respect of particular classes of property.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

STEEL SHEET AND TINPLATE BARS (IMPORTS).

Mr. WELLOCK: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of steel bars capable of being rolled into sheets for the making of hollow-ware that was imported into this country in 1927 and 1928, respectively; and if he can give an estimate of the percentage of this steel that was used for making hollow-are?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The imports of steel sheet bars and tinplate bars amounted in 1927 to 764,649 tons, and in 1928 to 538,935 tons. I believe that any of this material would have been capable of being converted into hollow-ware. But very little of it can have been so used, since, as the hon. Gentleman may remember, the Safeguarding Committee reported that approximately 95 per cent, of the raw material used by British hollow-ware manufacturers was produced in this country.

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES (WOOLLEM TRADE).

Mr. MACKINDER (for Mr. LONG-BOTTOM): 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will arrange for copies of the evidence now being submitted by the applicants for safeguarding in the woollen industry to be available, on completion, to Members of the House of Commons?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The practice which has been consistently followed is that the reports of Safeguarding inquiries are published, but that the evidence, which is often exceedingly voluminous, is not published, as the cost is too great and the utility too questionable to justify this course to the House.

Mr. MACKINDER: Is it not the fact that the minutes of evidence are taken by shorthand writers and afterwards transcribed, and would it not be possible for an extra carbon copy to be made so that hon. Members of this House might understand the question which they are to debate?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That question has often been raised in debate and has been answered by the Prime Minister and myself. I am merely repeating the answer which has been previously given. I am only following
the practice which has been consistently followed in regard to Safeguarding inquiries.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask whether, in view of the considerable development of this policy and the tremendous importance of this evidence, the Government will reconsider a decision which was perhaps quite reasonable at the time it was taken but which is unreasonable now?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means by a "considerable development of this policy." Any inquiry which is proceeding is an inquiry conducted under precisely the same conditions as have been in operation for the last four years.

Mr. MACKINDER: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is an industry affecting 250,000 people; it is the largest application that has been made. In that case, does he not think Members of Parliament, who have to make the final decision, ought to know what has been said at the inquiry?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think the particular size of the application is relevant. All inquiries are public, and I do not think the public advantage would be served by printing an enormous volume of evidence.

FOODSTUFFS (COLD STORAGE).

Mr. FOOT MITCHELL: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any and, if so, what steps are being taken to secure publication of figures of stocks of foodstuffs in cold storage?

Captain MARGESSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to answer this question. Legislation would be necessary to secure comprehensive figures of stocks of foodstuffs held in cold storage in this country. The Empire Marketing Board are, however, endeavouring to arrange, by agreement between the interests concerned, for the voluntary publication of aggregate figures of stocks of dairy produce and fruit in cold storage.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

BOARD OF TRADE CERTIFICATES (EXAMINATION CENTRES).

Sir BASIL PETO: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he
can undertake that no action shall be taken with regard to the proposal to reduce the number of examination centres for Board of Trade certificates from 12 to five until the mercantile marine officers' organisations have had a full opportunity of presenting their case to the Board of Trade in opposition to this proposal?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Report of the Departmental Committee on Examinations of Masters and Mates is now under the consideration of my Department. No final proposals have yet been formulated as to future examination centres, and I shall of course be glad to receive representations from the mercantile marine officers' organisations before arriving at any decision.

OVERLOADING.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make any further statement on the arrangements to be made to prevent overloading of ships; whether he is now in possession of the views of the Chamber of Shipping on the proposed extra safeguards; and what is the nature of these observations?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Dundee on 31st July last, a memorandum on overloading was prepared by the Board of Trade and forwarded to the shipowners' associations for consideration. A reply has now been received from the associations, dealing fully with the whole question. It shows a considerable measure of agreement with the Board's suggestions, and promises active co-operation and assistance. This reply is now under consideration, and arrangements will be made as soon as possible for a discussion with representatives of the associations, and thereafter definite proposals will be placed before the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that no safeguards which are considered necessary by the Board of Trade will be held up by a minority of shipowners?

Sir P.CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir; there is no foundation whatever for the
suggestion that the shipowners want to hold up anything that is necessary for the safety of ships, and the Board of Trade always refer these matters to the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee whenever they consider that course is necessary.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was referring to a minority of shipowners. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is only a minority of shipowners who break the law by overloading?

Sir P.CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not at all in favour of minorities ruling.

Mr. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the terms of the proposal now before the shipowners, if they accept them, will be laid before the House prior to any action being taken?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Member 'appears to misunderstand the ordinary procedure. The regular procedure is that when the Board of Trade propose any Regulation, it is referred, first of all, to the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee for consideration. That is a statutory Committee. After the views of the Committee have been considered, the Regulation is made in its final form.

Mr. W. THORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Members of this House have not more common sense than the Board of Trade?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It would be very invidious for me to answer that question. The practice which has been followed by previous Governments when dealing with these Regulations has been to have them considered very carefully by the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee. I think it is desirable, if we make Regulations, that they should have the support of all sections of the shipping community.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: Is it not a fact that no Regulations are made unless there is agreement beforehand with the shipowners and the Sailors' and Firemen's Union?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: All sections interested in British shipping are represented on the Advisory Committee, and that is why I think it is such a very valuable body to which to submit practical questions.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that much dissatisfaction has been caused by the Board of Trade in previous years taking action without taking this House into consultation, and that that is the cause of all the dissatisfaction to-day?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. There is no foundation for that statement. The House has on many occasions approved of the procedure by which the Board of Trade, before making Regulations, consults the Advisory Committee.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not a fact that when the right hon. Gentleman for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was President of the Board of Trade, he altered the load line, without consulting anyone?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

ROADS AND COMMUNICATIONS ORGANSATION (SOUTHERN COMMAND).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that for the last nine years the Roads and Communications Department, Royal Engineers, Southern Command, has undertaken the making and maintenance of its own roads and parades, 300 ex-soldiers being employed on this work, for which expensive machinery, steam-rollers, lorries, etc., have been purchased; that this work is now to be let out to private contractors, the plant and machinery sold for what it will fetch, and the 300 ex-soldiers dismissed as from 30th March next; and if so, whether he will cause this matter to be reconsidered?

Mr. GARDNER: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for War, whether it has been decided to close down the Roads and Communications Department in the Southern Command as from 31st March next; if so, whether this means that the work which is now done by direct labour will be given out to contract; and whether he will state the reason for this change of policy?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The work for which the Roads and Communications Organisation in the Southern Command was primarily maintained was the reinstatement of camp
sites, the salvage of stone from temporary war roads and the disposal of surplus material. This work is now complete and it would not be justifiable on either administrative or financial grounds to continue a special organisation to look after War Department roads in the Southern Command. The roads work will therefore in future be carried out by contract as occasion requires, but every endeavour will be made when a contract is placed to arrange with the contractors to give a preference to men previously employed by the War Department.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is all that the Minister for War proposes to do for these 300 ex-soldiers to express the hope that the contractor will engage some of them?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I cannot go on employing them if there is no work to be done. The roadwork will be done in the future by contractors and the most I can do is to provide in the contracts that these men shall get a preference in new work.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why should this work of repairing military roads have been turned over to contractors at all?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Because it is the common practice that this work should be done by contractors.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: What is the reason for this? Is it done on financial grounds?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That was not my answer. I said that there is no justification on financial grounds for maintaining this organisation, seeing that the work for which it was created has been completed except as far as roads are concerned, and these are being done by contract.

Mr. PALING: Would it not have been in accordance with the terms of the Prime Minister's letter if he had done his best to continue this work?

OFFICERS IN INDIA (INDULGENCE PASSAGES).

Colonel APPLIN: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for War, whether he can give the figures showing the average number of British officers serving in India who were granted indulgence passages on troopships to and from India during the decade 1910–20 and for the year 1928, respectively?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The normal trooping services were suspended during the War and the records prior to 1913 have been destroyed. During the trooping season, 1913/14, the number of indulgence passages granted to British service officers serving in India was 8O homewards and 15 outwards. The figures for the trooping season, 1927/28, were seven each way.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it not within the knowledge of the War Office that the number of indulgence passages now granted to British officers serving in India is very much smaller than in pre-War years?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes, that is so.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is not that a hardship?

Mr. THURTLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, during the same period, indulgence passages were granted to other ranks?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I cannot say without notice.

PRIVATE ENGAGEMENTS (THEATRICAL PERFORMANCES).

Mr. BRIANT: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that soldiers serving in the Guards are employed at a London theatre: how many hours are they so employed for evening and matinee performances; how many hours and for how many days were they engaged in rehearsals; and if, considering the number of unemployed ex-service men who belong to the theatrical profession, he will make inquiry into the whole question of the employment of soldiers in other capacities?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have no information regarding the first three parts of the question. As regards the last part, no soldier is excused any part of his military duty on the grounds of a private engagement of the kind referred to, and I see no reason for inter fering with the use that individual soldiers may make of their spare time.

Mr. BRIANT: When the right hon. Gentleman says that he has no information, are we to understand that he has not tried to obtain any information on the subject? Has the right hon. Gentle-
man tried to obtain any information; has he inquired whether it is a fact that a certain number of guardsmen have been employed for long hours at rehearsals; and, if so, does not that interfere with their obligations to the Army?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As I understand, soldiers are not permitted to have private engagements which interfere with their military duties, but, subject to that, I do not make inquiries, and it would be impossible to interrogate each individual soldier as to how he spends his spare time.

Mr. BRIANT: Seeing that at any rate there is some indication of employment which might interfere with their duties as soldiers, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is worth while to make inquiries?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The commanding officer would prevent any soldier from doing anything which interfered with his military duties.

Mr. BECKETT: Are we to understand that it is possible for soldiers to be on the stage every night during a long London run without interfering with their professional duties?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That I cannot tell, but there is no reason why they should not use their spare time on the stage.

Mr. SIDNEY WEBB: Are we to understand that there has been no inquiry into this matter; and is it possible for a man to be employed in this way without the commanding officer knowing of it.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: So long as it does not interfere with his military duties, I am not inquiring, nor would the commanding officer inquire, how a man spends his spare time.

Mr. WEBB: The right hon. Gentleman has not replied to the latter part of my question. May I ask whether the commanding officer arranged this, or whether any application was made to him to arrange it?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That I could not say without notice.

Mr. WEBB: Will the right hon. Gentleman make the inquiry?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will.

Mr. HAYES: May we now understand that soldiers in their spare time may be engaged in any private capacity in the way of employment?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I would not say that, but only so long as it, does not interfere with their military duties.

Mr. HAYES: is it necessary to obtain the approval of the commanding officer before a man may be so employed?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, I think not.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Is it the case that, for long periods some 50 guardsmen were engaged on the stage at a London theatre; and, seeing that this work might be done by ex-service men who are now out of work, will not the right hon. Gentleman regard himself as having an obligation towards them?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is hardly a matter that arises out of the question on the Paper.

TERRITORIAL ARMY ARMOURED CAR COMPANIES.

Lord APSLEY: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether any of the yeomanry armoured car companies are to be equipped with Carden-Lloyd armoured machine-gun carriers; and whether he is now in a position to state when the obsolete Peerless type of armoured car will be replaced by a vehicle capable of more efficient and economical performance?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, Sir. The carrier is not suitable for an armoured car unit. As regards the second part of the question, although I regret that financial circumstances do not yet permit the provision of modern armoured cars for the Territorial Army Armoured Car Companies, it is proposed to equip each of these units during 1929 with two six-wheeled lorries, which will be increased to four for the annual training period.

Lord APSLEY: Arising out of that reply, may I ask whether it may be taken that all the yeomanry armoured car companies will remain armoured car companies?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: My Noble Friend must not read that into my answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RATING.

CAITHNESS AND SUTHERLAND.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what the yield of a penny rate will be in Caithness and Sutherland, respectively, and in each small burgh in those counties, after the Local Government (Scotland) Bill has come into operation, and the de-rating of agricultural, freight transport, and industrial lands and heritages has taken place in accordance with the provisions of the Bill?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): As the answer involves a table of figures, I propose, with the hon. and gallant Baronet's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the Table:



Yield of 1d. rate after Local Government (Scotland) Bill has come into operation.




£


Caithness (Landward
…
153


Sutherland (Landward)
…
283


Thurso Burgh
…
59


Wick Burgh
…
151


Dornoch Burgh
…
24

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what he estimates will be the annual cost involved in the payment of travelling and subsistence allowances to members of county councils of Caithness and Sutherland under the provisions of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill?

Sir J. GILMOUR: On the experience in connection with the education authorities, I estimate that the annual cost referred to should not exceed, in the case of Caithness, £500, and in the case of Sutherland £400.

BLIND WELFARE, SCOTLAND.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any scheme for providing contributions to voluntary associations concerned with the welfare of the blind, such as is referred
to in Clause 48 of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, has been or is under discussion; and, if not, whether an undertaking can be given that the welfare of blind persons will not be prejudiced by reason of the provisions of the Bill?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Until the Local Government (Scotland) Bill becomes law, it would be premature to discuss any scheme under Clause 48 providing for the payment by local authorities of contributions to voluntary associations who carry on services for the benefit of blind persons resident in their areas. I am prepared to give an undertaking that the welfare of blind persons will not be prejudiced by reason of the provisions of the Bill.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to give an undertaking that these associations will be able to obtain the same grants from the local authorities that they have received from his Department in the past?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Certain Amendments will be put down dealing with this Clause, and I think we had better discuss them on the Report stage.

RAILWAY FREIGHT REBATES.

Mr. JAMES BROWN: 35.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in presenting the Supplementary Estimate for railway freight rebates, it was the intention of the Government that the benefit of reduced freights on timber should go to the coal industry or to the timber trade?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a question asked on 12th December last by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Sir W. Preston), of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. BROWN: It is just the ambiguous nature of that reply that prompted me to put down the question. It is a plain "Yes," or "No." I want to ask which of the parties gets the benefit.

Colonel ASHLEY: My answer was perfectly plain then and is perfectly plain now—the people who pay the freights.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that there
is a dispute at present between certain sections of the timber trade and the coal masters in connection with the matter?

Colonel ASHLEY: But surely there can be no dispute as to who is paying the freights to the railway companies.

Mr. BROWN: There is a dispute as to who is to get the rebate, and that is why I have put the question. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will give an authoritative answer, that will settle it.

Colonel ASHLEY: I can only repeat that the people who pay the freights get the reduction.

BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (ELECTION).

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any decision has been reached with respect to the pending guardians elections, and, if so, will he furnish the House with full information?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): The only step so far taken has been to defer the elections the procedure for which would under the existing Order relating to the election of guardians begin on 1st March. As the Local Government Bill provides that no election of guardians shall be held after its coming into force and in view of the possibility of the Bill becoming law before the present guardians go out of office on the 15th April, it seems to me desirable, after consulting my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Health, that the expense and trouble involved in holding elections which the passage of the Bill would render unnecessary should be avoided, if possible. I have accordingly made an Order which provides that the dates fixed in the existing Order shall not apply on the present occasion.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether he is satisfied with the authority under which he is acting, and would he not have been better advised to have told the House first? Can the House be supplied with copies of the Order?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This is not an Order which has to be laid on the Table of the House. I am satisfied as to my authority; I have consulted the
authorities. I sent the Order yesterday to the clerks to the guardians and published it in the Press, and it is now available in the Vote Office.

Mr. MARDY JONES: What number of guardians will be affected by this decision?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I presume all the boards of guardians.

Mr. E. BROWN: What steps are being taken in case of vacancies occurring?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is provided for in the Bill. The point is that, if the Bill passes before Easter, as we hope it will, the considerable expenses which would be incurred in elections would be of no value.

COUNTY COUNCILLORS (EXPENSES).

Mr. GREENWOOD: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to take the necessary steps to secure the recommittal of Clause 49 of the Local Government Bill in order to bring that Clause into harmony with the Government's proposals in the Scottish Bill as regards payment of expenses of county councillors?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): No, Sir. There appears to me to be no necessity for complete uniformity in mattters of this kind in England and Scotland.

Mr. GREENWOOD: If the right hon. Gentleman is determined to persist in this anomalous state of affairs as between England and Scotland, will he put the whole of England and Wales on the same footing; and is he aware that, so far as London is concerned, Clause 49 does not apply?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is an entirely different question from the one on the Paper.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman was claiming that there might not he uniformity between England and Scotland. My question was: Will be secure uniformity in England and Wales if not elsewhere?

Mr. THURTLE: Is it now the deliberate policy of the Government to accord preferential treatment to Scotland?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

CANCER, SCOTLAND.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the figures to the last available date of the number of deaths from cancer of men, women and children respectively?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As the answer involves a tabular statement, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The figures given below are for the year 1928:


—
Male.
Female.
Total.


Under 15
…
11
16
27


Over 15
…
3,005
3,870
6,875


All ages
…
3,016
3,886
6,902

MELTON CEMENT WORKS (DUST).

Major CARVER: 55.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the inconvenience that is still being caused to the surrounding villages by the continued emission of dust from the Melton cement works, East Yorkshire; and what action he has taken, and is prepared to take, in the matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The district alkali inspector has given constant attention to this matter for some months. He reports that the company are continuing their efforts to find a satisfactory solution of the trouble, and that extensive experiments are in progress; and I understand that the company now propose to erect a high chimney.

Major CARVER: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the amenities of five villages are affected by this nuisance of the emission of dust and will he ask the company to instal the new process which entirely eliminates the distribution of cement dust?

Sir K. WOOD: I know there are many and considerable complaints concerning this matter, and I will see what further can be done to abate the nuisance.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

DOMESTIC SUPPLIES (UNEMPLOYED MINERS, SOUTH WALES).

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 22.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that in many places in South Wales unemployed miners are unable to obtain coal for their own domestic use; and will he take action to remedy this?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): I am not sure whether I correctly understand what the hon. Member has in mind, but, if he is referring to the free coal or coal at special prices which is supplied by colliery companies to their employés, I would remind him that, where this custom exists, it is an incident of employment, and cannot be enforced after the contract of employment has been terminated.

Sir R. THOMAS: Does that mean that these poor, wretched men, owing to some rule or other, are not able to obtain coal for their wives and children?

Commodore KING: No, Sir; I know of no case where miners are unable to obtain coal. I do know of cases where special arrangements have been made to enable them to get it, and, in other places, Where it is being provided at the local market rates.

Sir R. THOMAS: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman state definitely in this House that these men in no case are deprived of obtaining coal?

Commodore KING: I do not understand what the hon. Member means by "deprived of obtaining coal." I am not aware of any case where they are unable to get it.

Sir R. THOMAS: Does not that mean the same thing?

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is it not the case, that, while miners who are employed do get domestic coal as part of the terms of employment, the question asked relates to unemployed miners?

Commodore KING: Both the reply that I gave in the first place and my supplementary replies have dealt with that point.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If you have hundreds of miners unemployed, they cannot get the coal.

BUNKER COAL SUPPLIES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 23.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the continued complaints of shipowners and others, especially on the Humber, Tyne and Clyde, of the delay in obtaining bunkers and cargoes of coal owing to the artificial restriction of output practised by rings of colliery owners; if he is aware that, in addition to the delays experienced on the Humber, vessels are now being kept waiting on the Tyne for a week and even a fortnight, and on the Clyde for 10 days; that similar complaints come from South Wales; whether, for example, he has been informed of the complaints made at the annual meeting of the Clyde Steamship Owners' Association on 28th January; whether he proposes to take any action in the matter; and the number of ships held up at British ports, owing to the scarcity of bunker coal, on the 5th February, 1929?

Commodore KING: I have had inquiries made as to the position regarding coal cargoes and bunkers on the Humber, Tyne and Clyde. I can find no serious cases of delay owing to the scarcity of bunker coal, and on the 5th February at all British ports only four cases of delay were reported, one of half a day at West Hartlepool, one of three hours at Middlesbrough, and two of about two hours in South Wales. As regards coal cargoes, I explained the North-East coal position in my reply on the 7th February to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). I am informed that the shortage on the Clyde, to which the Clyde Steamship Owners' Association referred, relates to one particular variety of coal, and is due, not to the operation of the Scottish Coal Owners' marketing scheme, but to a breakdown at two collieries supplying that coal. As regards the Humber, steps have been taken which should ensure larger supplies of coal for bunkers and for export. As I stated in the House last week, I have no reason to doubt that the coalowners will take the necessary steps to meet the welcome increased demand for coal, and no action on my part seems to be necessary.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, although only one or two cases may
have been reported to him, it is common knowledge at these ports that not only are ships held up for long periods—far longer than his Department knows of—but also—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is apparently giving the information for which he is asking in his question.

YORKSHIRE (CLOSED AND RE-OPENED MINES).

Mr. LUNN: 24.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many coal mines have been closed in Yorkshire since the 1st of January, 1926, and how many men were thrown out of work as a result of such pits being closed; and will he also give particulars of coal mines re-opened in Yorkshire and the number of men employed at such pits since 1st July, 1928?

Commodore KING: Since 1st January, 1926, 95 pits in Yorkshire employing 14,800 wage-earners, have closed and not re-opened. The number of pits which were closed on 30th June, 1928, or have closed subsequently for at least a month, and have since re-opened, is 12, employing 1,600 wage-earners at 2nd February, 1929.

Mr. LUNN: In view of the answer given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the previous question as to the shortage of coal and the need for coal, what is the use of his Department if they do not see that something is done in order that coal may be supplied where it is necessary?

Commodore KING: I said in my previous answer that I have no doubt that the coal owners will take the necessary steps.

Mr. LUNN: But what are you doing to see that the owners take the necessary steps to supply people with coal? What is the use of a Government Department that does not do that?

WAGES, DURHAM AND NORTHUMBERLAND.

Mr. BECKETT: 25.
asked the Secretary of Mines how many miners in the Durham and Northumberland coalfields are receiving less wages than the minimum wage agreed upon by the minimum wage board of those counties?

Commodore KING: No cases have been reported to me in which rates of wages in Northumberland and Durham have fallen below the statutory minima.

Mr. BECKETT: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman read the report of the Prince of Wales, from which he will find that it is so?

Commodore KING: I know of no report by His Royal Highness at all.

Mr. BECKETT: Did not the hon. and gallant Gentleman take the trouble to read the reports which His Royal Highness gave to the Press every day?

Commodore KING: I read the newspaper reports.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Has it not been brought to the notice of the hon. and gallant Gentleman previously by the Miners' Federation that in almost every county in the country miners are not asking for the minimum wage for fear of being dismissed?

Commodore KING: No, Sir. I have stated perfectly clearly in my answer that no case has been reported to me in which the wage has fallen below the statutory minima.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact that the Miners' Federation, at the last deputation that the hon. and gallant Gentleman received, informed him that the Minimum Wage Act was being ignored all over the country?

Commodore KING: I would point out to the lion. Member that, as he is no doubt aware, the statutory minimum refers to the Act of 1912, and that at the present time there is a subsistence wage, which is higher than that, and which is a contract as between masters and men.

Mr. BECKETT: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman has read the newspaper reports of the Prince of Wales's visit, how can he say—

HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

EXPORT TRADE.

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: 26.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether any action has been taken on the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Coal Industry, page 95, that, in order to promote the export trade
in coal, the establishment should be considered of an official system, internationally agreed, for the specification, sampling and analysis of export coal?

Commodore KING: It has proved a matter of considerable difficulty to devise standard methods for the sampling and analysis of coal. This problem is now being considered by a Sectional Committee of the British Engineering Standards Association, which has been set up for the purpose. The Government Departments interested are represented on the Committee and substantial progress is being made.

OUTPUT.

Mr. DAY: 27.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can give the present output of coal per week, giving comparable figures for the years 1927 and 1928?

Commodore KING: As the answer involves a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:


Week ended
Corresponding Week


1928.
1927.


1929.





12th January
5,214,600
5,278,700
5,244,700


19th January
5,247,900
5,203,800
5,197,800


26th January
5,251,500
5,141,900
5,225,100


2nd February
5,312,000
5,045,400
5,267,200

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES (INSPECTION).

Major GLYN: 28.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he intends to take any steps, pending the passing of the Road Traffic Bill, so as to ensure that there shall be compulsory and periodic inspection of public service vehicles, in order that the public may be protected and the number of serious accidents due to inferior brake power or other mechanical defects reduced; and whether, if the Ministry of Transport has no such powers, the local authorities, whose business it is to issue licences, may be empowered to make such inspection as a
condition of renewing the licence for a period longer than three months?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have no power to impose or to require local authorities to impose any such conditions.

ACCIDENTS, LONDON.

Major GLYN: 29.
asked the Minister of Transport what were the equivalent figures for the London traffic area of accidents investigated by officers of his Department, or which came to the notice of the Metropolitan or City Police, for the period 1927 to 1928, which for England and Wales are returned at 586 accidents, involving the deaths of 488 persons and injuries to 1,161 other persons; and what proportion do these figures represent of the total number of similar serious accidents involving death or serious injury and which were reported to the respective police forces in England and Wales?

Colonel ASHLEY: As the answer is somewhat long, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The latest comparable figures are those for the calendar year 1927. The figures quoted by my hon. and gallant Friend are taken from the annual report on the administration of the Road Fund for the year 1927–28, and represent the comparatively small number of specially serious accidents in the whole of Great Britain, excluding the London traffic area, which were investigated during that year by officers of my Department. Outside this area I have no power to hold inquiries into road accidents, and the investigations by my officers into the more serious accidents brought to the notice of the Department are carried out by the courtesy of coroners and of the police authorities concerned. In the London traffic area powers are conferred upon me under the London Traffic Act, 1924, to inquire into accidents which are alleged to be due to defects in the road or defects in the vehicle, and during the calendar year 1927, 408 such accidents were brought to my notice involving 41 deaths and injuries to 193 parties. Statistics as to the total number of street accidents caused by vehicles in Great Britain for the year 1927 are given in the return furnished to the House by the Home Office, dated 5th April, 1928.

CANAL BRIDGES, SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE.

Mr. HANNON: 30 and 31.
asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether his attention has recently been called to the growing intensity of the problem of the use of canal bridges in Birmingham and South Staffordshire industrial areas; if he proposes to adopt measures to remedy the inconvenience and financial loss inflicted upon traders in Birmingham and surrounding towns; and if he contemplates early legislation in relation to this matter;
(2) whether he has received reports from the district in which the Birmingham Canal Navigations Company operate of serious injury to canal bridges from fast and heavy motor traffic; and if, seeing that this canal company has suffered damage involving considerable expenditure and that the company has notified him that it cannot undergo risk of further damage in the absence of any steps being taken by the Ministry or local authorities, he will say what action he proposes to take to prevent dislocation of local traffic and safeguard the interests of the canal company?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am well aware of the difficulties created by the existence of weak bridges on roads in the area to which my hon. Friend refers and elsewhere. A Government Bill which, if passed, will, I hope, go a long way towards providing a solution of this pressing problem, was introduced in another place on Wednesday last.

Mr. HANNON: Can any financial assitance be given, under the provisions of the Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, to enable local authorities or the owners to carry out schemes?

Colonel ASHLEY: No doubt if and when the Bill becomes law, it will be possible for local authorities to apply to me for a grant, when each case will be considered on its merits.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in South Staffordshire nearly every town has these small bridges, most of them on the main roads, and that there is great difficulty at present in carrying on the traffic?

Colonel ASHLEY: That is why we brought in the Bill.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some further information as to what he means by "if and when the Bill passes"?

Colonel ASHLEY: If the Bill passes both Houses of Parliament.

ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE (TAR).

Mr. HANNON: 32.
asked the Minister of Transport the value of the imports of foreign tar imported for use in this country in the construction and maintenance of roads; if he is aware that the gas and coke-oven industries in Great Britain produce annually 2,000,000 tons of tar derived from the carbonisation of coal; and if, as this volume of tar is adequate for all purposes in the construction and upkeep of roads in Great Britain, he will take measures to secure that only tar produced in Great Britain will in future be employed in British road construction and maintenance?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am informed that in 1928 the imports of coal tar from foreign countries amounted to 295 tons, of the value of £1,967, and from countries within the Empire 1,201 tons, of the value of £3,753. No figures are available as to the proportion of foreign tar actually used in the construction and upkeep of roads; but it is evidently very small. I am constantly impressing upon highway authorities the importance of using British materials, but there appear to be no grounds for special intervention on my part in the present ease.

PARKED CARS (LIGHTS).

Sir FRANK MEYER: 33.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, under the Road Transport Vehicles Lighting Act, 1927, motorists have been absolved from keepings lights on at any of the recognised parking places in the Metropolitan area?

Colonel ASHLEY: Under the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations, 1928, the power to exempt from the lighting requirements vehicles standing in recognised parking places in the Metropolitan Police area is vested in the Commissioner of Police who, I understand, has not up to the present thought it desirable to exercise his powers in this respect.

Sir F. MEYER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in parking places such as St. James's Square, it is quite
an unnecessary expense to make then keep their lights on at night, and will he not represent to the Commissioner of Police that he might exercise his powers; otherwise, it is useless to put powers into an Act of Parliament?

Colonel ASHLEY: The most appropriate thing would be for my hon. Friend to put down a question to the Home Secretary on the subject.

Mr. BECKETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in several London parking places you are allowed to put your lights out?

OMNIBUS COMPANIES (RETURN TICKETS).

Mr. OLIVER: 34.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has received any complaints from passengers who have bought return tickets from omnibus companies and find, when the return ticket is presented, that the company has been bought by or merged with another company and the ticket when tendered has been refused; and whether he will take steps to save the public from this grievance?

Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir.

TOLL GATES, VICTORIA PARK, MANCHESTER.

Mr. COMPTON: 36.
asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been called to the death of Richard Claydon, resulting from a motor car collision with unlighted toll gates in Anson Road, Victoria Park, Manchester; and whether he is prepared to order an inquiry into this matter with a view to the securing of some arrangement with the interests concerned whereby these encumbrances can be removed from one of the principal thoroughfares of the city?

Colonel ASHLEY: My attention had not been called to this accident. I have no power under the existing law to order an inquiry into the matter.

WESTERN AVENUE.

Sir ALFRED KNOX: 37.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can see his way to make substantial grants during the coming financial year towards the construction of the Western Avenue, seeing that this important arterial road was commenced no less than nine years ago and is urgently need by the manufacturers of High Wycombe?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am not in a position to add to the information contained in the reply which I made to my hon. and gallant Friend's question on 18th December last.

Sir A. KNOX: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman bear in mind that the delay in the construction of this road is affecting the expansion of trade and employment in High Wycombe?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have all those considerations very fully in mind. We will get on as soon as possible, having regard to financial considerations.

Sir A. KNOX: Is not nine years an inordinate time?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Ought not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to remind his hon. Friend that he supported the raiding of the Road Fund?

MOTOR LORRIES AND CYCLES (LIGHTS).

Mr. DAY: 38.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the coroner's remarks at an inquest held at Enfield on Patrick Eaton Robinson and James Collins, who were killed by a motor lorry while cycling on the Cambridge arterial road, at which inquest it was stated that the lamps on the lorry were too high to shine on the rear reflectors of the cycles, and the coroner stated he had drawn the attention of the Home Office to this defect in the law; and will he consider introducing amending legislation to have this defect remedied?

Colonel ASHLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the latter part of the question, the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations, 1928, lay down for reflectors such optical requirements as to reflection and dispersion of light as to permit of considerable latitude in the position of the lamps on an overtaking vehicle.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman regard to the fact that art enormous number of the general public think that they are absolutely absolved from carrying any reflector at all on their bicycles?

Colonel ASHLEY: No, I have not heard any statement to that effect.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman inquires from the ordinary police force, he will find that is the case.

Mr. DAY: Is there any prospect of the Road Transport Bill, which was circulated some time ago being introduced in the present Parliament?

Colonel ASHLEY: I should think it is rather doubtful.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONISTS (NERVOUS COMPLAINTS).

Sir R. THOMAS: 39.
asked the Postmaster-General what number and percentage of girls employed in telephone exchanges in London during the past year have been recorded as suffering from nervous complaints, slight or serious; what is the maximum continuous period of duty during the busy hours of the day; and what is the maximum number of lines allotted to one attendant?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The answer is rather long and involves a number of figures. With the hon. Baronet's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir R. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman state briefly whether he finds there are any of these complaints?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes, there are a certain number.

Sir R. THOMAS: Can the right hon. Gentleman account for the somewhat irritable disposition of some of these ladies?

Following is the answer:

A considerable amount of time and labour would he required to furnish the information asked by the hon. Baronet; but I am in a position to give corresponding figures for 1926. In that year, out of 79,712 days of sick leave taken by London telephonists, 4,913 days were attributed to neurasthenia, nervous debility, nervous exhaustion, nervous shock and neurosis, 385 days to neuritis, 1,592 days to neuralgia. The total number of telephonists employed was 7,051; but there is no record of the number of telephonists who were absent on account of these disorders. The normal maximum continuous period of duty cover-
ing the busy hours of the day is 3½ hours. This is sometimes extended to four hours: but the duty in either case includes some time outside the busy period. The number of lines allocated to any one operator varies from 60 to 260, the average number being 120.

DAILY LETTER DELIVERIES.

Lord APSLEY: 40.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will state the districts in the country which do not have a delivery of letters at least once every weekday?

Sir W. MITCHELL-TIOMSON: There are a number of isolated places in all parts of the country, more particularly in Scotland, Wales and the West of England, which have no daily delivery, e.g., The Shetlands, Orkneys, Hebrides, Scilly, Alderney, Sark and parts of Exmoor. A special return would be necessary to obtain a complete list of these places. This would involve considerable time and cost and under these circumstances I hope my noble Friend will not press for it.

Mr. J. BROWN: If the right hon. Gentleman receives information with respect to some places in Scotland, will he take steps to see that things are remedied?

Mr. LAMB: Is the right hon. Gentleman hot aware that there are some places even in the Midlands where they do not get these deliveries?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I can only say that applications for daily deliveries in these isolated parts are always sympathetically considered, and will be sympathetically considered, unless the cost is wholly disproportionate to the amount of correspondence.

Mr. BROWN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what "sympathy" means? I have made several applications, and, while I have had sympathetic answers, I have had no redress.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: In most cases the delivery is granted unless it is quite clear, on the facts, that the amount of correspondence dealt with is wholly disproportionate to the cost.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that a private company would be more sympathetic in the matter?

PENNY POST.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: 42.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in connection with the success obtained by New Zealand in establishing a penny post to the rest of the Empire and the promising start made by Canada in the same direction, there has been since 1923 any increase in the volume of postage correspondence between these Dominions and Great Britain?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The net weight of letter mails to and from New Zealand and the United Kingdom has increased since 1923, but how much of the increase has been due to normal growth and how much to reduction in rates cannot be estimated. So far as Canada is concerned, no figures are yet available which would indicate whether or not the traffic has increased since penny postage was restored.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a similar step on the part of this country would result in increased correspondence, and a consequent diminishing loss of revenue?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: That is a question which I would prefer should he addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir ALFRED HOPKINSON: 44.
asked the Postmaster-General what is computed to be the average amount of loss to the Post Office per letter on unclosed letters delivered and what is the average profit per letter on closed letters; whether the cost of delivering an unclosed letter charged ½d. is less or more than that of a closed letter charged 1½d., and what is the estimated amount of the difference; whether any expense in sorting, inspection, or otherwise would be saved by adopting a uniform rate of 1d. up to one ounce; and whether, having regard to experience in other parts of the Empire and the probable effect on trade, it is considered that the estimated loss of two millions is a maximum figure and might be reduced shortly if a uniform 1d. rate up to one ounce were adopted?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The average loss on a ½d. packet is estimated at rather less than ¼d.; and the average profit on a 1½d. letter at about ¾d. The practice of holding over ½d. packets posted after a prescribed time results in
some saving of cost, although the amount cannot be exactly assessed; in other respects an unclosed letter costs about the same to handle as a closed letter. It is impossible to forecast with any approach to accuracy the effect of a uniform rate of 1d. for one ounce, and the estimate of £2.000.000 loss is largely conjectural.

THEFTS, MOUNT PLEASANT.

Mr. DAY: 49.
asked the Postmaster-General the value of the seven registered parcels that were stolen from the sorting office at Mount Pleasant on the morning of 31st January; whether the whole of these parcels contained Treasury notes; and whether any insurance of these parcels had been effected with or by the Post Office?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It has been ascertained that the value of the contents of the parcels in question was £15,500, and that all the parcels contained currency notes. The answer to the third part of the hon. Member's question is in the negative.

TELEPHONE CHARGES, HYDE.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. NUTTALL:

43. To ask the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that up to the time that the telephone system at Hyde was made automatic all calls between Hyde and Manchester were charged at the 1d. rate, as it was calculated that the distance between these two towns was not more than seven miles, and that the moving of the telephone exchange, when the system was made automatic, placed the Hyde exchange outside the 1d. area, he is prepared to restore to the business communities of these towns the same charges which they would have had if no alteration in the system had been made?

Mr. R. W. SMITH: May I put this question on behalf of my hon. Friend?

Mr. SPEAKER: I presume the hon. Member has been asked to put this question by the hon. Member whose name is on the Order Paper?

Mr. SMITH: I have a letter from him here.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: My hon. and gallant Friend is under a mis-
apprehension in thinking that the telephone system at Hyde is automatic. I am very sorry that it is not possible in this, as in other cases of marginal areas, to depart from the strict application of the radial measurement rule. The Hyde exchange is situated outside the seven-mile radius from Manchester telephone centre and accordingly I cannot apply to it the rates proper to exchanges inside that radius. The effect of the change will be to raise the fees for calls to some exchanges in the Manchester area but to reduce the annual rentals by 10s.

GAS WARFARE (PROTECTIVE MEASURES).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether any scheme will be issued to local authorities and others concerned for the protection of town populations from chemical gases in future warfare; providing for gas-proof rooms, flushing of streets with appropriate chemicals, decontaminating clothing, and providing first-aid and removals to hospitals; and what steps are being taken to provide the necessary preliminary training in these matters?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The problem of the protection of the civil population against gas attack is being closely studied in all its aspects, including those specifically referred to in the question by the hon. Member. The need for the preliminary training of personnel and for the preparation of full and precise instructions to all concerned is not being overlooked.

Mr. SHINWELL: Does the Prime Minister really expect another war?

Mr. THURTLE: Is it not the best protection for this country to have a Government which pursues a policy of peace, and not one of provocation?

BANK RATE.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, prior to the raising of the Bank rate on Thursday last, any representation was made to the Treasury by the Bank in accordance with Section 8 of the Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1928, asking for
authority to increase the amount of the fiduciary issue above 260 million pounds?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): No, Sir. An increase in the fiduciary issue would only have had the effect of stimulating the transfer of funds from this country to New York for speculative purposes.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the latest outcome of his financial policy, or has he in mind any remedy which he proposes to take to prevent the industry of this country from being at the mercy of speculators in America or in any other foreign country?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I can imagine no remedy which would be more ill-judged than interference on political grounds with the working of our banking system.

Sir R. THOMAS: Is it not a fact that the rise in the Bank rate is due to our prematurely going back to the gold standard?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman had no knowledge of the proposal to raise the Bank rate, and that the Treasury were in no way consulted?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I certainly had knowledge beforehand.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recollect that the chief criticism raised from hon. Members opposite against the policy of a sound currency, was that we should be snowed under a great mountain of gold?

Sir R. THOMAS: May I have an answer to my question? I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact, generally recognised, that the rise in the Bank rate is due to our having gone back, prematurely, to the gold standard?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I do not think that is at all the correct way to put it. Many things followed, good, bad and indifferent, from the decision that was then taken, and which the House approved, but it is not right to say that any movement of the Bank rate is due to that decision. Of course, if we were not on the gold standard, we might not have had a rise in the Bank rate on this particular occasion but, on the other hand, the financial position of the City of
London and the country might stand very differently from what it does now.

COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY.

Mr. WELLOCK: 47.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what portion of the £26,500,000 of share capital and reserves of the three telegraph companies embraced by the proposed Communications Company represents reserves?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): About £12,400,000.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: Does the Communications Company yet exist, and can the Financial Secretary say what is the state of affairs in the negotiations?

Mr. SAMUEL: That is quite a different question.

PETROL DUTY.

Mr. LUNN: 48.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what was the total amount received from the tax on petrol up to 31st December last; and what is the amount estimated to be received up to the end of this financial year?

Mr. SAMUEL: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 5th February to the hon. Member for the Elland Division (Mr. Robinson). As regards the second part, the Budget estimate, as revised in view of the alterations made in the tax during the passage of the Finance Bill, was £12,200,000.

LAND RECLAMATION (HUMBER).

Major CARVER: 50.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been called to the large amount of land which might be reclaimed from the river Humber, in the East Riding of Yorkshire; whether he has received any notification of this from the East Riding County Council; and what action he is prepared to take in the matter?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply I gave to the question on the same subject
which was put to me yesterday by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication when the Bill for the special drainage of this area is likely to be introduced?

Mr. GUINNESS: I think very shortly.

FISHING INDUSTRY (EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS).

Commander WILLIAMS: 51.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of men and boys engaged in the fishing industry in England and Wales and Scotland in the years 1913, 1920, and 1928?

Mr. GUINNESS: As the reply contains a number of figures, I propose, with my hon. Friends's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to circulate only a report of the number of men and boys employed afloat, or does he intend also to circulate the figures in regard to those employed ashore?

Mr. GUINNESS: I think the figures only cover those afloat.

Commander WILLIAMS: Do the figures show a tendency to rise, or fall?

Mr. GUINNESS: There is a very considerable fall since the figures which were obtained just before the War.

Commander WILLIAMS: Is there any prospect of the Ministry being able to do anything to try to encourage people to go into the industry?

Mr. GUINNESS: I should be very glad to hear of any proposals from my hon. and gallant Friend by which that desirable object could he obtained.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can figures be published of those directly employed ashore, including fisher girls?

Mr. GUINNESS: I should think it is very doubtful whether we should be in a position to get those figures, but I will see what figures can be communicated.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the calculation is four persons employed ashore to one person afloat?

Mr. GUINNESS: These figures are founded on the information in the possession of the Board of Trade, and collected by the Registrar General of Shipping, and I doubt whether any other figures will be available.

Mr. TAYLOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what he regards as the principal cause of this serious diminution in the fishing industry?

Mr. GUINNESS: Not in reply to a supplementary question.

Following are the figures:

The estimated number of men and boys employed in sea fishing in Great Britain for the years 1913, 1920 and 1927 is as follows:—


Year.
England and Wales (including the Isle of Man).
Scotland.
Total.


1913
…
45,382
34,504
79,886


1920
…
41,117
31,491
72,608


1927
…
34,496
25,522
60,018

The figures for the year 1928 are not yet available.

DISTRESSED AREAS (ALLOTMENT CULTIVATION).

Mr. LUNN: 52.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he will urge upon committees, national and local, administering the Lord Mayor's fund the necessity of helping unemployed miners to obtain seeds for their allotment gardens?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I understand that the Joint Committee of the Lord Mayor's Fund have decided that grants will be available from the fund to enable divisional committees to give assistance towards the cultivation of allotments in distressed mining areas, and that arrangements are now being made to give effect to this decision.

Major COLFOX: Can the Noble Lord say how long it is estimated that it will be necessary to keep this fund in operation?

Lord E. PERCY: Not without notice.

IRISH FREE STATE (EX-BRITISH CIVIL SERVANTS).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 53 and 54.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (1) whether he can inform the House as to whether Messrs. Wigg and Cochrane, and other ex-British civil servants in the Irish Free State, have now received the compensation to which they have on two occasions been held by the Privy Council to be entitled under Article X of the Irish Treaty, the first decision of the Privy Council in their favour being so long ago as May, 1927;
(2) whether he is aware that some hundreds of ex-British civil servants transferred from the British Civil Service to the Irish Free State Civil Service have submitted applications for retirement under Article X of the Irish Treaty, in many cases several years ago, and that such applications are still un-dealt with; and what action the British Government are taking to secure the observance of Article X of the Irish Treaty in this respect?

Captain MARGESSON: I have been asked to reply. It will be appreciated that, inasmuch as the judgment of the Privy Council referred to in the first of my hon. Friends questions affected the position of other civil servants besides the two directly concerned, it was desirable that there should be conversations not only between His Majesty's Governments in the United Kingdom and in the Irish Free State, but also between His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State and the representatives of the civil servants. I am happy to be able to inform the House that these conversations have now resulted in agreement, which I understand is satisfactory to the representatives of the civil servants to whom I have referred. His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State have, however, requested that the terms of agreement should not be announced to Parliament here until it is possible also to announce them to the Parliament in Dublin. The latter is not at present sitting, and the earliest possible date for a simultaneous announcement would be the 20th instant. My right hon. Friend hopes the House will agree that such a request is not unreasonable and that my hon. Friend will therefore be prepared to put down a further question on or about the 20th instant.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can the hon. and gallant Member say whether interest will be paid to these unfortunate people in respect of the money compensation which has been wrongfully withheld from them for a period running into years?

Captain MARGESSON: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question upon the Paper.

HOUSING (CHILDREN).

Miss WILKINSON: 56.
asked the Minister of Health whether in view of the fact that many house agents refuse to place on their books the names of couples who have young children and who are seeking apartments, on the ground that landlords will not accept tenants with more than one child, he will issue a circular to local authorities asking them to make a survey of such accommodation as is available to couples with children for the purpose of supplying information, kept up-to-date, to such parents, thus obviating much hopeless searching for homes, and at the same time giving to the housing committees more accurate data of the need for houses and flats than is available at the present time?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend does not think that the suggestion made by the hon. Member is practicable. The real solution of the difficulty, as was stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member on the 29th ultimo, is to increase the amount of available accommodation, and my right hon. Friend trusts that local authorities will continue to direct their efforts in this direction.

Miss WILKINSON: Seeing that it takes such a long time under the present Government to get this alternative accommodation, does not the right hon. Member think that some small practical steps might be taken to aid these unfortunate women who are tramping streets trying to get this accommodation and who are being told by house agents that the landlords will not take them? Surely his Department has some duty in the matter?

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member has not studied the housing statistics. Considerable progress of an almost unexampled character has been made in the last few years, and I think it would be
far better for local authorities to act as house builders rather than as house agents.

Miss WILKINSON: After the Parliamentary Secretary has finished studying to his own satisfaction the statistics issued by his own Department, will he also study the large number of advertisements which appear in every town in this country, and which say "No children taken." Will he, therefore, do something to help these women, because house agents refuse to help them at all?

Sir K. WOOD: The only way to help these unfortunate people is to have more houses built.

Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that some municipal authorities themselves refuse to have children in some of their houses?

Sir K. WOOD: Perhaps the hon. Member will communicate with them and try to help in the matter.

POOR LAW RELIEF.

Mr. MACLEAN: 57.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that some boards of guardians are asking traders who are supplying goods in exchange for relief tickets to allow subsequently to the guardians a discount on all goods supplied; and whether this practice has received his sanction?

Sir K. WOOD: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The obtaining of discounts from tradesmen is not an uncommon feature of commercial transactions where large quantities of goods are concerned. The action of the guardians does not require any sanction on my right hon. Friend's part, but on the other hand, is not action which he is disposed to criticise.

Mr. PALING: Is it not the fact that a case of this description occurred in Doncaster about a year ago and the guardians lost?

Sir K. WOOD: I do not know.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. POTTS: 58.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the weekly pension of Mrs. Emma Jane Smallwood, widow, residing at 42, Eldon Street
North, Barnsley, Yorkshire, is assessed and paid 8s. per week; and how such amount of pension allowance was arrived at?

Sir K. WOOD: The reply to the first part of the question is, as previously stated, in the affirmative. As regards the last part, the amount of pension was determined with reference to Mrs. Small-wood's earnings which were assessed at a yearly value between £26 5s. and £31 10s.

Mr. POTTS: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary how he arrives at the figure of 10s. a week which he has just quoted, as the rate of her maintenance, while on the other side the Government assess the rate of maintenance at 5s. per week in the case of unemployment pay?

Sir K. WOOD: I think, perhaps, it will be more convenient if the hon. Member will see me so that I can show him the whole figures in connection with this case.

GREENWICH PARK (GENERAL WOLFE MEMORIAL).

Sir GEORGE HUME: 59.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he has been approached by the High Commissioner for Canada with regard to the erection in Greenwich Park of a memorial to General Wolfe, to be presented by Canadian subscribers; and, if so, what action has been taken in the matter?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The design and proposed site of the memorial have been submitted to and approved by the Royal Fine Art Commission. The First Commissioner is having a model of the memorial placed on exhibition in the Tea Room with a plan showing the position of the site selected.

FIRTH OF CLYDE (TRAWLERS).

The following question stood upon the order Paper in the name of Mr. MACQUISTEN:

16. To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take steps to prevent the proposed opening by the Fishery Board of the Firth of Clyde, which has hitherto been closed waters, to trawlers, and so preserve the livelihood of the large number of Scottish fishermen whose native fishing grounds will be destroyed if these waters are opened up to the trawlers from all parts of England?

Mr. J. BROWN: May I be allowed to put this question on behalf of my hon. and learned Friend?

Mr. SPEAKER: Has the hon. Member been asked to do so by the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten)?

Mr. BROWN: No, but I am as deeply interested in the subject as the hon. and learned Member.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. MacDONALD: Will the Prime Minister say what business it is proposed to take on Friday?

The PRIME MINISTER: The business will be: Committee stage of Supplementary Estimates for Houses of Parliament Buildings; Colonial Office; Treasury and Subordinate Departments; Law Charges and Courts of Law, Scotland; Dominions Office.
If there is time other Orders will be taken.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Florence Ruth Dalton, for County of Durham (Bishop Auckland Division).

EXPORTATION OF HORSES BILL,

"to amend the law with respect to the exportation of horses," presented by Mr. Ammon; supported by Colonel Applin, Mr. Compton, Mr. Broad, Mr. Viant and Mr. Parkinson; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 52.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.

As amended, considered.

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY.]

NEW CLAUSE.—(Deductions from inclusive rents of industrial hereditaments in respect of rate relief.)

(1) Where any rates in respect of an industrial hereditament occupied by a tenant are, whether by agreement or otherwise, payable by the landlord, then, so long as under any contract made before the commencement of this Act there is payable by the tenant in respect of the hereditament rent inclusive of those rates, the landlord shall, as from the appointed day, be liable to pay to the tenant or allow by way of deduction from his rent a sum equal to the difference between every amount payable by the landlord by way of those rates, after deducting any allowance, commission, abatement, or deduction granted to him by the rating authority, and the amount which would have been so payable at the rate in the pound current for the time being if the rateable value of the hereditament had been equivalent to the net annual value thereof.

(2) In the case of any industrial hereditament which is for the time being included in one assessment with other hereditaments the amount of the sums payable under this Section by the landlord in respect of any rate or instalment of a rate becoming due before the hereditament is separately assessed shall, on the application either of the landlord or of the tenant, he certified by the rating authority, and their certificate shall be final and conclusive.—[Sir K. Wood.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The PARLIAMENTARY-SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause is designed to secure that the rate relief given to industrial premises shall, in the circumstances set out in the Clause, inure to the benefit of the tenant. For instance, there are premises which are let at an inclusive rental which is generally arrived at in order to cover, first, a reasonable rent, then an annual amount of rates which might be expected to be chargeable on the premises during the term of the lease or agreement. Naturally the rate charge would be liable to fluctuations due to variations of rate poundage, or to re-assessment, or to both those things. In
the ordinary way of a contract of this kind they go up or down in accordance with the circumstances of the case, and in most cases no doubt the variations are taken into account by the parties to the particular contract or agreement; but in this case the Government have taken the view that inasmuch as the amount or rate charge is to be so drastically reduced by the action of Parliament, it is clearly a case for intervention so as to secure a reduction of the inclusive rental in such circumstances.
Therefore, the Clause provides in effect that the landlord shall give credit for, or allow to be deducted from the inclusive rent, a sum equivalent to the 75 per cent. remission which the landlord, as ratepayer, will secure under the Bill. This, of course, refers only to the part of the premises used for industrial purposes, the rates on which are remitted under the Government scheme. On non-industrial parts of the premises, if any such there be, the rates will continue to be payable in full and thus there will be nothing in that respect to be passed on to the tenant. The amount of the relief set forth in this Clause is to be measured by taking the difference between the rate-charge—at the rate in the £ for the time being current—assessed on the rateable value of the hereditament, as it will be calculated under the Bill, and the rate-charge as it would have been—at the same rate in the £—if the rateable value of the industrial part had been its full net annual value as apportioned and shown in the valuation list instead of one-quarter thereof. The general effect of the Clause is that the landlord, in the circumstances set out in the draft on the Paper, has to allow as a deduction to the tenant the remission on the rates paid on the part of the premises used for industrial purposes. I believe the Clause will commend itself to the House.

Mr. ROY BIRD: I wish to get a clear statement as to whether or not this Clause covers "room and power" companies. There are a great many of these companies owning "room and power" sheds who have not one tenant, but, in many cases a large number of tenants, these tenants paying an inclusive rent which is not only in respect of rent and rates, but includes power as well. I do not think that this Clause covers these cases. I should like to know whether
it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman that the Clause should cover "room and power" sheds, and if he means that it should cover them, I hope he will consult his legal advisers and, if necessary, make the appropriate amendment in another place.

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is advised that the cases to which the hon. Member refers will come under the Clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Saving for municipal corporations and charters.)

Save in so far as may he necessary to give effect to any alteration or definition of boundaries made thereunder nothing in this Part of this Act shall prejudicially alter or affect the powers, rights, privileges, or immunities of any municipal corporation or the operation of any municipal charter.—[Sir K. Wood.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This New Clause has been put down in order to meet the apprehension expressed that, in some way or other, the Bill might affect municipal charters and with a view to making it perfectly plain that, subject to the provisions of Clause 47—which deals with adjustment of boundaries on a joint representation by two councils—municipal charters will remain unaffected. Where there is a joint representation as to boundaries of county boroughs or counties, a municipal charter may be affected, but the Clause makes it clear that, except in such cases municipal charters will be in no way affected by the Government's proposals.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I wish to thank the Minister for accepting the suggestion made during the discussions in Committee in regard to the safeguarding of municipal charters.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Information to be given by Poor Law authorities and district councils to county councils.)

(1) It shall be the duty of every Boor Law authority, and of their officers, to furnish any information in their power which
may be required by the council of any county or county borough for the purpose of enabling them to discharge their functions under Part I of this Act.

(2) It shall be the duty of every district council, and of their officers, to furnish any information in their power which may he required by the council of any county for the purpose of enabling them to discharge their functions under Parts III and IV of this Act.—[Sir K. Wood.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This New Clause has been put down at the request of the County Councils Association and it will be agreed that it gives a useful power to the new authorities who will be taking over these duties. It enables them to obtain necessary information from the Poor Law authority and the Poor Law authority's officers in relation to the matters which are to be entrusted to them. We are also providing that it shall be the duty of every district council to furnish any information in their power which may be required for the purposes of the scheme.

Mr. HURD: Who is to pay the expenses of this proposal?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): There is no expense in connection with it.

Mr. HURD: There may be considerable expense. Will it be borne by the county?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not quite understand what my hon. Friend means by expense. This is information which is in the possession of the authorities who are directed to give it. Why there should be any expense, I cannot see.

Mr. HURD: I can imagine many cases where expense would be involved and I ask if the county will bear that expense?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot imagine any expense.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Is the Minister satisfied that the words "every district council" cover all the authorities which it is intended to cover?

Mr. KELLY: I have no doubt that the Minister's intention is that the information to be furnished by these authorities is that which is already in their possession, but there may be cases in which
the information will require a considerable amount of research, entailing expense. Who is to be responsible for that expense?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think in the absence of any provision it would be the duty of the body giving the information to meet any expense that might be incurred, unless they made an agreement with the other body, to whom they were giving the information, that that other body should pay for it. But I cannot agree that there is any likelihood of any serious expense being involved in the matter.

Mr. MARCH: Would it not be better to make it definite that the body requiring the information should pay for it? Why should the Minister put it all on to those bodies who are being asked to give the information, and who may be put to expense unnecessarily by the people requiring the information?

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 1, to leave out from the word "authority," to the word "to."
4.0 p.m.
I move this Amendment in conjunction with a further Amendment to insert the word "reasonably," after the word "may," in line 2; and I propose to move, as consequential Amendments, the omission of the words "of their officers," and the insertion of the word "reasonably in Sub-section (2) also. I take it, that the reason for including the words "and of their officers" was because it was felt that boards of guardians about to be abolished might not be anxious, in all cases, to supply the authority taking over their duties, with all the information which the new authority might require. Therefore, it is felt that there should be some statutory power of obtaining the information from the officers of the authorities about to be superseded. While that might apply to Sub-section (1) of this new Clause, although, for my own part, I do not think that it is really a very powerful argument, in so far as Sub-section (2) of this new Clause is concerned, I venture to suggest that it would be far better that these words should be
deleted. I say so because I think the inclusion of these words in this Clause tends to bite rather deeply into the principles of local government, because here you are giving statutory powers for one local authority to approach the officers of another local authority who are paid by the other authority and whose duties are supervised by the other authority, and yet the outside body will have power to require the officers of that authority to supply them with whatever information they may require. That is contrary to the ethics and principles of local government, and, therefore, I hope the Minister may see his way to accept the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have only just had notice from my hon. Friend that he intended to raise this point, and, therefore, I have not had much time to look into the matter; but, in the short space that I have been able to devote to it, it seems to me that my hon. Friend is reading into these words rather more than is contained in them. There is, of course, nothing new in the proposal which is made here. I could, for instance, refer my hon. Friend to the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, Clause 65 of which says:
the officers of all such guardians, overseers and committees, shall give to rating authorities and to assessment committees any assistance and information which they may respectively require for the purpose of enabling them to discharge their functions as aforesaid.
I do not take this Clause as meaning that a county council would send a requisition to an officer of another authority directing him to give information to them. What would happen would be that the county council would invite the district council to give information, which might be in the possession not of the members of the district council themselves but of their officers, and it would be the district council who would then require their officers to provide them with the information, that they might pass it on to the county council. I do not think really there is anything more in it than that, but I will undertake to look into it a little bit further wih my hon. Friend, and see wheher there is anything further in it than I myself at present see, but. I think he need not be under any real anxiety that this is importing anything new or serious.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman's second point was that the procedure would be that the county council would approach the Poor Law authority, who would, in turn, pass the request on to its officers. If that be so, are not the words "and of their officers" quite unnecessary? If the approach is to be made to the Poor Law authority, quite clearly the officers would be instructed by that authority, and there appears to be no need for those words.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is arguing on rather theoretical grounds, but I can conceive it possible that a district council might say: "We have not got this information, and we have no power to make our officers provide the information if they do not choose to do so." This Clause would put a statutory duty upon the officers to give the information in their power.

Mr. GREENWOOD: This is bureau cracy with a vengeance. The right hon. Gentleman has already quoted the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, where the same words occur.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: On a point of Order. Has the hon. Member the right to address the House a second time without leave?

Mr. SPEAKER: No. This is the Report stage of the Bill, and hon. Members have the right of speaking once only on one subject. I understood that the hon. Gentleman interrupted his speech in order to enable the Minister of Health to give a reply.

Mr. GREENWOOD: This is really a serious point. I am sorry that it was not raised in 1925. The right hon. Gentleman says that if a local authority has so small a hold over its officers that it cannot require them to produce information which, he has already told us this afternoon, they possess, he is going to impose a statutory duty upon them, to be enforced by some outside authority that does not pay the officers. That is a most serious state of affairs. It may be that the power will not be often used. I cannot conceive any local authority keeping officers who refuse to carry out instructions and produce information which the right hon. Gentleman says is available, but if it is to be used it is a very serious power to put into the hands of any authority such as a county council, who may, in certain circumstances, demand information, and have a statutory right to call for it, when they are making no contribution whatever to the payment of the officers' salaries. I hope the hon. Member will persist in furthering his Amendment.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I cannot help agreeing with the hon. Member who has just spoken, and I hope my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment. Under the terms of the Sub-section, the county council will have the power to deal directly with the officers of a local authority, which, I think, is highly undesirable.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Clause."

The House divided: Ayes, 192; Noes, 94.

Division No. 191.]
AYES.
[4.8 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Briscoe, Richard George
Colman, N. C. D.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Apsley, Lord
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cooper, A. Duff


Ashley, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Cope, Major Sir William


Atholl, Duchess of
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Couper, J. B.


Balniel, Lord
Buchan, John
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Bullock, Captain M.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Burman, J. B.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Campbell, E. T.
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Carver, Major W. H.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Dawson, Sir Phillip


Bethel, A.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R. (Prtsmth,S)
Eden, Captain Anthony


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Blundell, F. N.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Ellis, R. G.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Christie, J. A.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Clayton, G. C.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Brass, Captain W.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Everard, W. Lindsay


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Briggs, J. Harold
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.


Fermoy, Lord
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Fielden, E. B.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handtw'th)
Sandon, Lord


Frece, Sir Walter de
Long, Major Eric
Savery, S. S.


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Lougher, Lewis
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Skelton, A. N.


Gates, Percy
Lumley, L. R.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
McLean, Major A.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. Q. F.


Goff, Sir Park
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Margesson, Captain D.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hacking, Douglas H.
Meller, R. J.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Meyer, Sir Frank
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Hamilton, Sir George
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hammersley, S. S.
Mitchell, w. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hanbury, C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hartington, Marquess of
Morris, R. H.
Waddington, R.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Warrender, Sir Victor


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J.G.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Watts, Sir Thomas


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Oakley, T.
Wells, S. R.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Penny, Frederick George
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hume, Sir G. H.
Raine, Sir Walter
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Ramsden, E.
Withers, John James


Hurst, Gerald B.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Womersley, W. J.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lane, Stretford)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


James Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Ropner, Major L.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ross, R. D.
Wragg, Herbert


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.



Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Salmon, Major I.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Bowyer.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Potts, John S.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Purcell, A. A.


Amman, Charles George
Hardie, George D.
Richardson. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)


Bellamy, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ivts)


Benn, Wedgwood
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sakiatvala, Shapurji


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bondfield, Margaret
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shinwell, E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Briant, Frank
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Broad, F. A.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Snell, Harry


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kelly, W. T.
Taylor, R. A.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kennedy. T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Charleton, H. C.
Kenworthy, Lt-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Clarke, A. B.
Lawrence, Susan
Thurtle, Ernest


Cluse, W. S.
Lee. F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Compton, Joseph
Lowth, T.
Tomilnson, R. P.


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, William
Viant, S. P.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dalton, Florence (Bishop Auckland)
Mackinder, W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dalton. Hugh
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Day, Harry
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Wellock, Wilfred


Dunnico, H.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Welsh, J. C.


Edge, Sir William
March, S.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maxton, James
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Montague, Frederick
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gillett, George M.
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham. Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Oliver, George Harold
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Hayes.


Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton) propose to move his other manuscript Amendment?

Sir D. NEWTON: No, Sir, in view of the fact that, it raises the same issue as that which has just been decided.

Mr. SPEAKER: The next new Clause, in the name of the hon. Member for West Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Palin)—(Adjustment between counties and county boroughs in respect of added burden)—is not in order.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Extension and adaptation of Section 23 of Public Health Act, 1925.)

(1) Section twenty-three of the Public Health Act, 1925, shall extend and be in force throughout England and Wales (exclusive of the administrative county of London) as though it had been adopted with the consent of the Minister by all local authorities in manner provided by Part of that Act.

(2) Where a county council is the authority responsible for the maintenance or repair of the roads the said Section as so extended shall have effect as though for references to the local authority there were substituted therein references to the county council.—[Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I hope the Minister may see his way to accept this Clause, which is not contrary in any way to the general provisions of this Bill, and it is only intended to repair an omission in its provisions. The Public Health Act, 1925, contains parts which are of an adoptive character; that is to say, they do not become operative unless they are adopted by the local authorities. One of these adoptive Sections is Section 23, which gives powers, if they are adopted, to the local authority with regard to trees, hedges, and shrubs which are along the highways, if they interfere with the lighting or if they obstruct the passage of vehicles or foot passengers or the view of the drivers of vehicles, to serve notice upon the owner of the trees calling upon him so to lop them that they cease to form an obstruction. If the owner refuses to act upon this notice, power is given to the local
authority to take such action itself as may be necessary and to recover the cost from the owner.
There are two parts to my Clause. The first part proposes to make this provision general instead of adoptive, and the importance of that proposal depends, of course, on the extent to which the Section has already been adopted in the different parts of the country. The second part is still more important, because it seeks to ensure that the authorities which have the right to promote this action shall be the road authorities concerned. Under this Bill the road authorities are transferred in some cases from the local authority to the county council, and the object of this new Clause is to ensure that it shall be the county council that has the power. Under the Section of the Public Health Act, main roads already come under the authority of the county council for this purpose, but subsidiary roads do not, and the object of this Clause is to ensure that in all cases the county council shall have the right in regard to trees and shrubs provided for in the Section of the Public Health Act, so that the authority which has the power shall be the same in every case. Unless the Minister can give an assurance which is quite unquestionable that this provision is not required, I hope he will see his way to accept this Clause.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I beg to second the Motion.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member has just put forward an important contention, although, as it is not very controversial, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) will not require to place before us this afternoon any new specimen of Liberal policy, which we have sadly missed during our Debates recently. The proposal is in relation to Section 23 of the Public Health Act, 1925, and refers particularly to lopping trees and shrubs when they form any interference with or obstruction to passengers, and matters of that sort. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 23 it is provided that those powers may be exercised by the local authority of the district, but by Sub-section (2) the powers are exerciseable by the county council instead of the local authority as regards any main roads maintained by them.
The powers of Section 23 are, therefore, already possessed by county councils in relation to main roads, and in the case of other authorities the Section simply has to be formally adopted, which can be done by simple resolution, and the consent of the Minister is not required. By Sub-section (1) of Clause 28 of the Bill, it is provided that:
all enactments relating to main roads shall as from the appointed day have effect as if for references therein to main roads there were substituted references to county roads.
The county council will, therefore, have the powers of Section 23 over all county roads. Both as regards the county councils and the other local authorities, I think the matter, which the hon. Member quite properly brought before the House, will be fully dealt with, and we are advised that this new Clause is unnecessary.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

Mr. SPEAKER: The new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers)—(Provision for consultation between public assistance committee and representatives of voluntary hospitals)—would come better as an Amendment to Clause 6. I see the hon. Member has an Amendment to Clause 6 lower on the Paper. The next new Clause, in the name of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir E. Turton)—(In formation to county council) —has already been covered by the new Clause moved by the Minister of Health.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Why is the new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir E. Turton)—(Amendment of 37 and 38 Vict., c. 54)—out of order?

Mr. SPEAKER: It seems to me to be out of order twice over. The proper place to have dealt with it would have been in the Eating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act of last year. Besides that, if it were carried here, it would certainly alter the incidence of rating.

Mr. HANNON: I do not propose to move the new Clause standing in my name—(Saving rights of electricity undertakers).

NEW CLAUSE—(Agricultural hereditaments (contracts).)

It shall be a condition of every contract for the occupation of an agricultural hereditament made on or after the commencement of this Act that the relief granted by this Act to occupiers of agricultural hereditaments shall not have been taken into account in determining what rent is properly payable in respect of any such hereditament and every such contract shall state in declaratory terms that this condition has been complied with.—[Mr. E. Brown.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The intention of this Clause is to provide that at the end of a tenancy, when a new contract of tenancy is made, the relief given to agricultural land by way of de-rating shall not he taken into account in fixing the rent for the new lease. May I call attention to the fact that the words of this Clause are already in the Bill in another connection? On page 141 of the Bill the following words occur:
The relief to occupiers of agricultural hereditaments granted by this Act shall not be taken into account by an arbitrator in determining for the purposes of Section 12 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, what rent is properly payable in respect of a holding.
I am quite sure that this House does not wish that de-rating should accrue to the benefit of the landlords. If there is any use in de-rating, it should be to encourage the producer, and I cannot understand why, if for the purposes of arbitration with regard to rent it is laid down in the Schedule to the Bill that de-rating shall not be taken into consideration as an element in fixing the amount under the arbitration, we cannot then put it in the shape of a Clause, thus making quite sure that, whatever may be the rise or fall of rents in future days, what we have done by way of de-rating agricultural land in this Bill shall accrue only to the tenant farmer or the occupying owner, and not to the landlord who does not produce food. Since we have adopted in this new Clause the actual words in the Schedule to the right hon. Gentleman's own Bill—I am sure that the House as a whole would wish the relief to go wholly to the producer of food on the countryside—I hope he will see his way this time to accept the new Clause.

Mr. HAYDN JONES: I beg to second the Motion.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It appears that the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) is in this matter more Royalist than the King, because the farmers, who are extremely anxious to have this relief, have not thought it necessary to ask the Government to impose any such condition as that which the hon. Member seeks to include in this Clause; and I would point out that, as a matter of practical politics, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to carry it into effect. Agricultural hereditaments will not, if the Bill become law, appear in the valuation list at all, and it would be very difficult therefore on some future occasion to say exactly what the amount of the relief has been. I am very doubtful whether the proposal of the hon. Member that a declaration should be made that such relief has not been taken account of in a contract for rent would have any practical effect. It would be almost impossible to prevent the relief being taken into account whether or not a declaration to the contrary were inserted. The provision in the Schedule does net appear to be analogous at all. That is not a question of imposing statutory conditions upon two parties to a contract; it is a direction to an arbitrator, which is quite a different thing. When we consider also the fact that we have had experience of the relief of agricultural land to the extent of three-quarters of the rateable value without this question having been raised, it seems inappropriate that, when we are remitting the last quarter, this matter should be brought forward as though it were some new principle.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, the Minister of Health, when he suggests that merely to make a declaration will have no practical effect. Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten the new Clause which he moved in the Committee stage, when he declared that the intention of the Government was that, in case any new burden were imposed on local authorities, a future Government, whichever type it might be, would have to make a certain contribution towards the increased expenditure incurred by the local authorities. I remember that the
right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary said that merely to express in so many words the intention of the Government which passes this Bill was a sufficient guarantee to local authorities in the future that any new burden for the extension of social services would be met partly by the Government, which ever Government happened to be in office. Now the right hon. Gentleman has apparently made a complete volte face, and suggests that, because we want to declare, by the inclusion in this new Clause, that no part of the relief granted to agriculture shall filter through to the landlords for whom not a penny is intended—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not the effect of the Clause at all.

Mr. WILLIAMS: It is the intention. If the right hon. Gentleman argues that, because we have a tremendous increase in owner occupiers, the effect of this Clause would not be quite as general in its application as it might have been before the War, when the number of owner occupiers was approximately only one-third of the number to-day, I should be inclined to agree with him. If, however, we can do so by any form of words, either the form of words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman himself in another part of the Bill, or any suitable phraseology which would have the same effect, we ought, if a declaration be of any value at all, to make that declaration, so as to ensure that in any case no part of the de-rating will find its way into the pockets of the landowners. On the Committee stage, we put down an Amendment that this benefit to agriculture should be taken into account when agricultural wages committees were dealing with wages for any future period. Unfortunately, that Amendment could not be dealt with. This I take to be another opportunity of making doubly sure that the benefits to be derived by agriculture will go first to the agriculturist, and that finally, after discussions by the wages committees, some portion at least will find its way into the pockets of the agricultural workers. Therefore, the suggested declaration by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) is a fairly comprehensive one. Its intention is sound and logical, and it ought to he accepted by the right hon. Gentleman. If, as he states, these particular words
are not suitable and will not have the effect intended and desired, it is up to the right hon. Gentleman to give us the satisfaction of ensuring that the £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 which is going to agriculture will go to agriculturists and not to the landowners, and will in part find its way into the pockets of the workpeople, who are responsible for doing all sorts of work in agriculture.

Miss LAWRENCE: We are discussing, in effect, the fundamental fallacy of the Government's de-rating policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) is a man of proved ingenuity in the drafting of Amendments, but he has put this new Clause down rather to draw attention to the facts than with any idea that a declaration can stop the remorseless processes of economic law. Let us look at what it is that determines the rent of agricultural land. I apologise to the House for going back to the very A.B.C. of economics, but, if there be one part of economic theory that is clear, it is the doctrine of the rent of agricultural land, that is to say, that the pressure between those who rent different sites results in the tribute which they pay for the sites being equivalent to the advantage that favourably situated land has over worse land. When a man is considering how much he will pay for the privilege of being able to farm a piece of land, rates and rent are one to him. When he pays the tribute of rates and rent, they are, from his point of view, no different, and the total amount of rates and rent is settled by the haggling of the market. If you raise rent during the occupation of a tenancy, the tenant has to pay. At the end of that time, if land goes into the market and new leases are created, or the land is sold, the whole of the additional cost of the rates falls back upon the owner. That is most clearly to be seen when you contemplate the actual sale of rated agricultural land. If you were to put up the rates of any piece of agricultural land, when the estate was sold it would sell for so much less. That is the reason why an old and settled rate is one of the very best taxes known to any Chancellor or any authority in finance, for a rate of some 70 or 80 years has already settled back upon the owner, and wherever a sale has taken place or a death has taken place, the
seller or the heir has been irremedially penalised and has in effect extinguished the rent.
That being the case, no declaration m an Act of Parliament can have other than the effect that when this land comes to be sold, or when a new lease comes to be fixed, the seller or the owner will reap the complete benefit of the de-rating of agricultural land. It will take a little time to settle that. For the moment the farmer will have the advantage, but irrevocably the whole of the money that Parliament has voted will fall back to the property owner. The hon. Member has manifested his customary skill in drafting a Clause which permits this matter to be discussed, but he knows, and we know, and the Minister says, that no declaration in a Statute will prevent this. He said that it is not likely to have any effect, but although the intentions of the Government are that the farmers should keep the benefit of de-rating, the Government have no possible means to suggest by which these benevolent intentions can be put into practice. We have talked about de-rating, and we are back now at the very crux of it. We have had an admission from the Minister that there is nothing that he can do, and nothing that Parliament can do, to prevent the landlord reaping the full benefit. That is an eleventh hour admission, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has made it.

Sir BASIL PETO: The speech to which we have just listened was an excellent and clear exposition of a theory, but in this matter the facts of history have more real value. After the partial de-rating of agricultural land in 1896, there was not only no increase in the general total of the amount exacted by the landlords throughout the country, but there was a, diminution of about £1,500,000 in the total rents of the following year, while there was not even in succeeding years any addition whatever to rent. It may be argued, and possibly proved, that had there been no partial de-rating of agricultural land, there would have been a still greater drop in the rent. No one can prove it conclusively, but it is significant that after the 1896 reduction of rates on agricultural land, there was a heavy fall, and not an increase, in agricultural rents. Again, in 1923 a further reduction in the rates
upon agricultural land was made, and it is significant to note that, although the increased value of the products of the land, an compared with the pre-War period, was certainly not less than 50 per cent. or 60 per cent., yet after the further reduction in the rates the net rent charged for the land was only 15 per cent. above the pre-War level.
We are much safer in dealing with what has happened than in reviewing the theory that all remissions of rates inevitably go into the landlord's pocket, and we can show conclusively that when remissions of rates have been made in the past, they have not gone into the landlord's pocket, but where they were intended, that is, to the relief of agricultural production. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said that the Minister was wrong in saying that this declaratory Clause would not be effective, because on some occasion during the passage of the Bill the Minister declared what was the intention of the Government. He is confusing two different things which have no relation to one another. The Clause is somewhat futile, and I think that the hon. Member for (Mr. E. Brown) thinks so too—

Mr. E. BROWN: Certainly not.

Sir B. PETO: I really regard it as an attempt to bring forward the theory which has been illustrated by the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Miss Lawrence), a theory which is one of the main sticks used by the Opposition with which to beat the Government dog. I do not think the theory will go down, because the farmers know the advantage which they have had from relief of rates in the past, and appreciate the relief which they are being given under this Measure, and I am quite convinced that they know that not only will they receive that relief but that they will be able to retain it.

Mr. MORRIS: The hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) has submitted that after the relief of rates granted to farmers by the Acts of 1896 and 1923 there was no raising of rents by the landlords, and I suppose the inference will be that there will be no raising of rents as a result of this further Measure of de-rating. If that be the ease, then there can be no harm in our
accepting the Clause, because it will only declare that to which the landlords are said to be only too ready to agree. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health resists this Clause on the ground that it will interfere with freedom of contract between individuals, that is, between the landlord and tenant, after the passing of this Bill. His contention all the way through in defending this Bill—and it is the contention also of the Parliamentary Secretary, and, indeed, of all the defenders of the Bill—has been that this de-rating will not tend to increase rents, but if this Clause would interfere with freedom of contract then clearly he thinks there is going to be a benefit under freedom of contract which will go to the landlord. This is the first time it has been demonstrated so clearly that there is a possibility of the benefit going to the landlord. I do not accept fully the contentions of the hon. Baronet with regard to what happened at the time of the 1896 Act and the 1923 Act, because those two Acts were passed during periods of depression—there would have been no need to pass them if there had not been that depression; and even though no de-rating had taken place at all there would, without doubt, have been an appeal by tenants in many cases for a reduction of rents. Can the hon. Baronet go as far as to show that the decreases in rents took place after the Acts of 1896 and 1923? How many instances in which rents were reduced can he bring forward? If there were no decreases, it indicates that rents were kept above the figure at which they ought to have stood. The Minister has said that we might put this proposal in as a direction to the arbitrator. It would be something if the right hon. Gentleman accepted the Clause in that form. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman would accept it and include it as a direction to the arbitrator in determining the rent under new leases. I should like to hear from him whether he is prepared to accept the Clause in that form?

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I do not know whether it is the intention of the Government that this relief is to go into the hands of the landlord or of the tenant, but I, personally, desire to see it go to the tenant, in order that we may see more land in this country cultivated and its produce going to the people. I wish to
mention a ease to the Minister. If he will inquire of the National Farmers' Union I am sure he will find that already action is being taken in anticipation of the passing of this Measure. A tenant farmer became bankrupt, and his farm was to let. A new man who thought he could do better than the other inquired whether he could have the farm. "I am prepared," he said, "to take it at the rent the other farmer paid when he had it." The landlord replied, "Oh, no, I cannot agree to that. You are going to get something through this de-rating, and I shall want more rent from that farm." If that be true, it is time somebody on the part of the Government—the Minister of Agriculture or somebody else—made inquiries to see whether landlords will not get the whole of this benefit in the shape of increased rent. The Minister ought to remember, too, that round about 1921 rents were advanced abnormally because of the decreased value of money. Farmers could not continue in face of those increased rents, and at the time the 1923 Act was passed they were in need of protection if they were to carry on with the production of food for this country.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) has referred to the facts of history, setting them against the only piece of economic theory which has stood the test of time. If there is one piece of economic theory which has never been destroyed, it is the theory of the economic rent; that is unescapable. If it be the case that relief from rates does not, in the long run, inure to the advantage of the landlord, that is not due to economic reasons, but is purely a matter of sentiment, because, in so far as economic causes operate, the relief would work out to the landlord's advantage. In telling us what happened the hon. Baronet has not told us all that happened, but only some of the things. He has been guilty of the very old fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc. It is a common enough fallacy amongst hon. Members opposite. The truth about de-rating in the past is that it took place at a time of grave agricultural depression such as this country had not known for three generations, and it was as a result of that depression that rents fell.
It is quite true that in 1923 the remission of rates on agricultural land coincided with a fall in agricultural rents, but I think it is also true that that fall in rents had begun before the 1923 Measure was passed. It had begun as a result of economic forces. Everybody remembers the high figure which had been asked for agricultural land because of the high prices which were then obtainable for agricultural produce. It was a repetition of what took place after the Napoleonic Wars 100 years ago. With the change in economic circumstances, of course rents fell. They would have fallen whether there had been de-rating or not.
It is quite clear that agricultural rents will rise where land is held by persons other than the owners. If a farmer owns his farm, clearly no question can arise about the advantage of de-rating, because he will obtain it—not as a farmer, but as an owner; but where there is a separation of the functions of occupier and owner the ultimate effect will be that the advantage will pass to the owner. I do not think that can be avoided. The right hon. Gentleman makes no attempt to avoid it. He could avoid it by doing something which hon. Members opposite are afraid to do, that is, interfere with what is called the working of economic laws. But he is not prepared to do that, though he has done it in other parts of the Bill for other purposes. The direction that the rating relief which is given to freight transport enterprises is to be transferred to the consumers is an interference with ordinary economic laws, and the right hon. Gentleman could apply the same system, if he wished, to the case of agricultural rents, but he does not choose to do so. His one excuse is that there are going to be no more valuation lists of agricultural land. That is true; we cannot help that. During the painful days of the Committee stage we have tried to improve the Bill. We have done our best, and this new Clause, although it may not fit the actual circumstances, is an attempt to do what, I think, most people would admit ought to be done, and that is to bring the benefit of the relief to the actual producer. If a landlord is a mere owner of land, taking no part in productive processes, no measure of this de-rating relief ought to pass into his hands. Although the hon. Member
for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) is not anxious to press this Clause very far, I hope he will do so.

Mr. E. BROWN: Certainly, I intend to.

Mr. GREENWOOD: At any rate the Clause has served to bring out this really important admission, and to that, of course, we shall cling. It will be worth defeat in the Lobbies to have on record the right hon. Gentleman's views with regard to the operation of de-rating in respect of agriculture land.

Sir K. WOOD: Both Oppositions are treading on very delicate grounds in so far as they are concerned in this proposal. When this Bill is passed into law it will completely relieve agricultural land of rates. I assume that hon. Members opposite are still opposed to granting that relief. As far as the Liberal party are concerned, I am still uncertain as to their attitude.

Mr. BROWN: No, you are not.

Sir K. WOOD: In so far as I am certain, I am certain that the hon. Gentleman's view is in disagreement with the policy expressed in his party's programme and in disagreement with the opinion of the two leaders, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and Sir Herbert Samuel. Therefore, I approach this Clause from the point of view that it has been moved by an hon. Member who is really uncertain as to his views, and I also assume that it is receiving the support of another party who are really opposed altogether to this relief being given.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: It is the wrong way to give it.

Sir K. WOOD: All this will certainly be noted on future occasions. If we examine this Clause which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) said he was going to cling to—"cling to" is a good phrase—we must certainly come to the conclusion that it is an extraordinary one. It says:
It shall be a condition of every contract for the occupation of an agricultural hereditament made on or after the commencement of this Act that the relief granted by this Act to occupiers of agricultural hereditaments shall not have been taken into account in determining what rent is properly payable.
Why "this Act"? Is this the only relief which is to be taken into account? I assume that the hon. Member had full advantage of the usual legal assistance in drafting his Clause, and if he is logical, why does he confine it to relief granted by this Act? Surely he ought to say, also, that it shall include the relief granted by the two previous Acts.

Mr. BROWN: Will you accept it then?

5.0 p.m.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member is constantly asking me to amend and then to accept his proposals. I really must decline to associate myself with the efforts of those who have been drafting this new Clause. I would point out to hon. Gentlemen opposite who are clinging to the hon. Gentleman's explanation of the Clause, that, obviously, this Clause is quite impossible and nonsensical, because no one would want to bring about what the hon. Gentleman has in view, simply to confine himself to relief given by this Act. If hon. Members really want to give relief, surely they would not do it in this way. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken from the Liberal Benches is a member of the learned profession, and I am surprised that he gives his powerful assistance to this Clause. Anyone can see that this Clause would alter a contract completely. It is a different matter with regard to the declaration put in with reference to future determinations by arbitrators, because this is a declaration by Parliament, and we are entitled to say that in every such case this particular relief shall not be taken into account in determining what rent is properly payable in respect of a holding. How on earth can hon. Members say, when two parties meet together, what they would take into account when they come to make a bargain. Apparently, the House is asked to start on the assumption that the Liberal party can find out what is passing between the parties when they are making a contract of this kind. From the point of view of the Clause itself—I am sorry to criticise it so adversely, because I recognise that it is a genuine effort on the part of the hon. Member—as far as the exact terms of the Clause are concerned, I am sure that no one would desire to support it in that form.

Mr. MORRIS: Would the right hon. Gentleman forgive me for one moment? He has referred to my speech. What I asked him was whether a direction to this effect could be given to the arbitrator?

Sir K. WOOD: I think the hon. Gentleman will probably have to read my book when it is finished. He will find that on page 141 of this Bill, in paragraph 13 of Schedule 10, provision is made in that particular respect. With regard to the proposition generally, the hon. Lady the Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) has also given us what we may perhaps call the Socialist theory on this particular proposal.

Miss LAWRENCE: Oh! I hope the right hon. Gentleman will include Ricardo.

Sir K. WOOD: Then I will amend my statement. I note that the hon. Lady is quite properly following out the policy of the Labour party at present, which is not to put forward Socialism as their chief mission in life. She has put it in the background, as the Socialist party are trying to do at present. But whether this is Socialist theory or not, or whether hon. Gentlemen opposite desire to see these things kept in the background or not, none of the statements made or the theories put forward have been justified by the facts. This is not the first time that relief has been given to agricultural land. We have had experience of it over a considerable period. I have had the privilege of reading some of the Debates which took

place in those far-off days when relief was given, and almost the same speeches as have been made to-day by hon. Gentlemen opposite were made on that occasion. The same forebodings were advanced. According to hon. Gentlemen opposite, everything would go wrong. Rents and money were going in the landlords' pockets, and the proposal was simply a dole. That was just 20 years ago, and yet none of those prophecies has proved correct.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Is there any more land in cultivation now than there was then?

Sir K. WOOD: The facts speak for themselves. When we brought in the Clause giving relief to agriculture, hon. Gentlemen who are now supporting this Clause did not dare to go to a Division. That was a very significant fact. There were no Tellers. The hon. Member who has just intervened was not present, or I know his courage would have persuaded him to come forward as a Teller on that occasion. There were actually no Tellers against that particular Clause, and I suppose this Clause is an effort to recover themselves from the position hon. Members opposite took up on that occasion. I hope that this Motion will be pressed to a Division, which we shall welcome. This is a most fantastic and impossible Clause, and I ask the House to reject it.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 103; Noes, 213.

Division No. 192.]
AYES.
[5.7 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Edge, Sir William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Ammon, Charles George
England, Colonel A.
Kelly, W. T.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Kennedy, T.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Gillett, George M.
Lawrence, Susan


Bellamy A.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lee, F.


Benn, Wedgwood
Greenall, T.
Lowth, T.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lunn, William


Bondfield, Margaret
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Mackinder, W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Briant, Frank
Grundy, T. W.
March, S.


Broad, F. A.
Hall, F. (York. W. R., Normanton)
Maxton, James


Bromfield, William
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Montague, Frederick


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Morris, R. H.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hardie, George D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Charleton, H. C.
Hayes, John Henry
Mosley, Sir Oswald


Clarke, A. B.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Oliver, George Harold


Cluse, W. S.
Hirst, G. H.
Paling, W.


Compton, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Cove, W. G.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Dalton, Florence (Bishop Auckland)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Potts, John S.


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Purcell, A. A.


Dunnico, H.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Welsh, J. C.


Sakiatvala, Shapurji
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Wiggins, William Martin


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Thorns, W. (West Ham. Plaistow)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Shinwell, E.
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Tomilnson, R. P.
Windsor, Walter


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Viant, S. P.
Wright, W.


Snell, Harry
Wallhead, Richard C.



Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sutton, J. E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Sir Robert Hutchison and Mr. Ernest Brown.


Taylor, R. A.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah



Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Wellock, Wilfred



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ellis, R. G.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Albery, Irving James
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-t.-M.)
Meller, R. J.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Meyer, Sir Frank


Apsley, Lord
Everard, W. Lindsay
Mitchell, S, (Lanark, Lanark)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Atholl, Duchess of
Fermoy, Lord
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Atkinson, C.
Fielden, E. B.
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Balniel, Lord
Fraser, Captain Ian
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Frece, sir Walter de
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Beamish, Hear-Admiral T. P. H.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Beckett, sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Gates, Percy
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Oakley, T.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon, Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Berry, sir George
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Penny, Frederick George


Bethel, A.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Bird, E. R. (Yorke, W. R., Skipton)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)


Blundell, F. N.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Raine, Sir Walter


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Ramsden, E.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hamilton, Sir George
Held, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hammersley, S. S.
Rentoul, G. S.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hanbury, C.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. u.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ti'y)


Brass, Captain W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stratford)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Ropner, Major L.


Briggs, J. Harold
Harvey, Major s. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ross, R. D.


Briscoe, Richard George
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxl'd, Henley)
Rys, F. G


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Salmon, Major I.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. J.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Buchan, John
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sandon, Lord


Bullock, Captain M.
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Savery, S. S.


Burman, J. B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Shepperton, E. W.


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Skelton, A. N.


Campbell, E. T.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)


Cayzer sir C. (Chester, City)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Iveagh, Countess of
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Alton)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen't)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. P.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Joynson-Hickt, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Storry-Deans, R.


Charterle, Brigadier-General J.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Christie, J, A.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Clayton, G. C.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lamb, J. Q.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Litter, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Locker-Lampion, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Locker-Lampion, Com. O. (Handtw'th)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Colman, N. C. D
Long, Major Eric
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Cooper, A. Dull
Looker, Herbert William
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Couper, J. B.
Lougher, Lewis
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Courthope, Colonel sir G. L.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Herman
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Lumley, L. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen
Waddington, R.


Crocks, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Macdonald. Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
McLean, Major A.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macmillan, Captain H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Makins, Brigadler-General E.
Watte, Sir Thomas


Edmondson, Major A. J
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wells, S. R.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Margesson, Captain D.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)




Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Withers, John James
Wragg, Herbert


Wilson, sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Womersley, W. J.



Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Major Sir George Hennessy and Mr. F. C. Thomson.

CLAUSE 1.—(Transfer of functions of Poor Law authorities.)

Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, to leave out the words "and except as otherwise expressly provided by this Act."
We are now dealing with the Clause which transfers the functions of Poor Law authorities to the council of the county or county borough comprising the Poor Law area for which the Poor Law authority acts. There are three districts which are expressly provided for, namely, Bedwellty, Chester-le-Street, and West Ham. In these instances the whole financial system is upset, and these districts will be de-rated. Under the financial provisions of this Bill they will be entitled to some grant or other, but those grants will depend upon the extent of their de-rating and the extent to which their functions are transferred. We are perpetually being told that the transfer of the functions of these Poor Law authorities will be beneficial to the localities concerned, but the three districts I have mentioned will not have the benefit of the arrangements made under the Bill, but only such arrangements as the Minister of Health may think fit to allow with regard to grants. The Minister of Health may take larger sums from the county or he may not, and it is extremely difficult to know what is going to happen.
With regard to administration, there is to be a certain breaking up of the Poor Law system which is adumbrated in the Bill, and various areas are to be moulded into one county or county borough. What is to happen in those places? There may be no arrangement at all made in certain cases, and in those instances they will go on under the present system for a long period of time. On the other hand, an arrangement may be made, not by the county council but under the direct superintendence of the Minister, and under the nominees of the Minister, who will be able to have a considerable voice in the administration. No defence whatever has been put forward for permitting such a change, and in this respect the Bill has very much disappointed us. It is
quite true that the administration of outdoor relief is to be left unchanged, unaltered and uncontrolled, and there is to be none of that discrimination between the able-bodied poor and those who are riot able-bodied which has been recommended time after time in the reports of Royal Commissions. Whenever we approach a really difficult question in regard to Poor Law administration, we find that the Bill is silent. The Royal Commission in their Report emphasised the fact that it is absurd to have under one authority so heterogeneous a mass of services as those connected with outdoor relief, and that fact has never been touched upon by the Minister of Health.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I must remind the hon. Lady that the purpose of this Amendment is merely to provide that the Poor Law functions exercised by nominated guardians shall be transferred to the council of the county or county borough.

Miss LAWRENCE: We have not been permitted to move the rejection of Clause 1, and it is extremely difficult for us to express what we desire should be left out in this Clause. This Amendment deals only with a very small portion of the questions which we want to put forward. I do not see any reason at all why districts like Bedwellty and Chester-le-Street should not be transferred to the council of the county or county borough. I know that the Minister of Health has said that West Ham is a troublesome matter to deal with. I know the right hon. Gentleman would prefer that these arrangements were not discussed in Parliament and that they should be left for him to settle. The only excuse made by the Government in the case of the West Ham Union is that it is likely to raise many difficulties and they think it would be much more convenient if that area was dealt with quietly at Whitehall.

Mr. MARCH: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. WEBB: I am sorry the Government have not offered to give any reply to this Amendment which I shall support
for the reasons which have been given by the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence). This Amendment enables us to raise the question of the exceptions to Clause 1 which are provided for in other parts of this Measure. Those exceptions include the three unions which are at present administered by nominated guardians. There are certain exceptions with regard to London, and they are of very serious moment. I want to deal with those exceptions, because they throw some light on the provisions of Clause 1. I do not know whether the Minister of Health claims that this Clause breaks up the policy of the Poor Law, but we know that it is the policy of the Cabinet that the Bill breaks up the Poor Law system. This Amendment expressly excludes the provision with regard to London, and the London County Council can completely break up the Poor Law.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This Clause expressly provides that the functions of the Poor Law authority shall be transferred to the council of the county or county borough, and surely that applies to London as well as to other counties.

Mr. WEBB: I submit that those powers are not transferred to the County of London, hut to quite a different body, namely, the administrative County of London which does not include the City of London for which special provision is made. I think I am in order in referring to that point. The administrative County of London can break up the Poor Law, but it need not apply for the transfer of any of its functions.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I point out that in Clause 17 which deals with the application of this Measure to London? It is provided that:
This part of this Act shall apply to the County of London.
In face of this provision is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) in order in saying that the County of London does not mean the County of London?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The functions are transferred to the County of London as elsewhere. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham can show that there is an exception in the
case of the City of London, he is entitled to do that.

Mr. WEBB: The whole of the functions are not transferred to the County of London in the same sense in which they are transferred to the administrative County of Middlesex. The City of London occupies a peculiar position. With regard to pauper lunatics, for instance, these are not provided for in regard to the City by the administrative County of London, the Corporation of the City of London being the administrative county for that purpose; and there are other matters such as those of industrial and reformatory schools, and so on, which have to be excepted. Under this Bill, the administrative County of London is in a position different from that of other counties. It is not obliged to delegate to the Public Assistance Committee any of the powers referred to in Clause 1, but, on the other hand, it is provided that other counties must delegate to the Public Assistance Committee various powers, namely, all those relating to the administration of the Poor Law. That is not a break-up of the Poor Law. It means, unfortunately—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On the point of Order. May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is in order in repeating exactly what he was saying before? I submit that the transfer of powers to the London County Council is under Clause 17, and, therefore, is not covered by the Amendment to which the right hon. Gentleman, is referring.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) to be arguing that in certain cases powers are not transferred to the councils of counties, and, if that be so with regard to the City of London, the right hon. Gentleman would be in order, but when he goes on to discuss all the powers that may be exercised by the county to which the transfer is made, that would not be in order on this Amendment.

Mr. WEBB: Of course, I bow to your ruling, but it is clear that there are powers which are not transferred to the council of the administrative county, but which are retained by the Corporation of the City of London. If it were decided to make the administrative County of London exactly like the other
counties, those powers might have to be transferred to it, and I have spent a large amount of time in past years in arguing that the special privileges of the Corporation of the City of London ought to be handed over to the administrative county. With regard to those sections which we are discussing on this Amendment, I submit that the powers given under Clause 1 are not given in the same way to the administrative County of London and that that, therefore, is one of the exceptions. I think I am right in that respect, and, that being so, I want to point out that that exception which is made is one of very great importance. The administrative County of London can break up the Poor Law entirely; the other counties cannot, and in their case the relief of the able-bodied poor or the unemployed is intermingled, under the Public Assistance Committee, with matters connected with various other classes, such as the aged who have not yet get old age pensions, the sick who are maintained at home, vagrants, and so on. They are all jumbled up together in one vast mass. The right hon. Gentleman is in favour of breaking that up, and we are complaining that it is not done by this Measure. Such places as the City of Manchester, for instance have not this power of breaking up the Poor Law which the administrative County of London has.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is not a power given by this clause to London. Except as regards the City, the functions of the Poor Law authorities are transferred to the county. It may be that the county council may have further powers, but that would be a matter for Clause 17.

Mr. WEBB: That, of course, disposes of my argument, but I do not think that it opens the door for the right hon. Gentleman to say a word on the subject if he would. With regard to the powers that are transferred to the county except as provided by this Act, we have no objection to that transfer, but we are trying to raise the issue whether the Act will carry out adequately the policy of His Majesty's Government. We suggest that it will not, and we ask in what way it is possible really to secure that breakup of the Poor Law which is the policy of His Majesty's Government. It is the
policy of the right hon. Gentleman, but it is nut carried out by this Measure, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will indicate in what way he proposes to deal with it in order that the Poor Law shall be broken up in England as it is going to be broken up in Scotland.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can do that on this Amendment.

Miss LAWRENCE: On a point of Order. Surely it is possible for the Minister to reply on the question of the excluded districts? I am sure that that is in order, because you allowed me to develop it.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Certainly, that is in order.

Mr. KELLY: I was hoping that this Amendment would have been accepted by the Government. One would have thought, in view of the proposal to hand over the administration of the Poor Law to the councils mentioned in this Bill, that it would not have been the desire still to continue the appointed guardians in office but, nevertheless, we find the Government insisting, not only on preventing a reasonable national method of dealing with the question of poor relief, but on a continuance of the method of appointed guardians—for whom very few of those who have any regard for the Poor Law feel any great respect, because they are not carrying out the spirit of the Poor Law—not for a short period, but, under Clause 19, as affected by this Amendment, possibly until 1934 or 1935. I submit that it is not in keeping either with the spirit of the time, or the desire of the people of this country, or with any feelings towards those who have fallen by the way in these struggling days, that this proposal should be continued, and I would ask the Government to be satisfied with their insistence upon handing over the functions of the Poor Law authorities to the county councils, and not to insist upon the continuance of that bad method of appointed guardians until 1934 or 1935, according to the whim of the Minister or the satisfaction of officials in his Department.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must say that I thought it possible, when I looked at this Amendment, that it was intended to raise the question which might also have
been raised by another Amendment to omit Clause 19, and the speech of the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) confirmed me in that idea. I shall not attempt to follow the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb), who was on a point which you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have ruled is not relevant to this particular Amendment; but I think that perhaps it may be convenient if I take this opportunity of making some statement as to what is in my mind in regard to the three areas which are now under appointed guardians.
The hon. Member for East Ham North herself appeared to distinguish between the Unions of Bedwellty and Chester-le-Street and that of West Ham. The hon. Member said that there appeared to her to be no reason at all why, in the two first-named areas, the appointed guardians should not disappear and their functions be transferred to the county. I may tell her that that is my intention. I have no intention of keeping on appointed guardians either in Chester-le-Street or Bedwellty, and I do not propose to put into operation Clause 19 as far as those two area s are concerned.
When we come to the West Ham Union, the position is very different, as the hon. Member herself will recognise. We have there a much more difficult matter. There is no question there of a small area being merged in the larger area of a county. We have there a case where two county boroughs and certain districts outside those county boroughs are combined for the purpose of administering relief, and I think that the best plan for dealing with the problem presented by those circumstances would be to separate from the union those parts of it which are at present outside the two county boroughs, letting those parts follow the ordinary procedure of the Bill and be merged in the county of Essex, but to provide for the two county boroughs in a union under appointed guardians until April, 1935. If that be done, the question of the financial adjustment, of course, arises. The position there would be governed by the general guarantee which is given in respect of all county boroughs, and under which, after taking account of any adjustments of the Poor Law areas, and any burdens which may be added to a county borough or any part of a county borough
by reason of the contraction of the area of the previously existing union, the county borough is still guaranteed a minimum gain of 1s. per head of the population. Therefore, the two county boroughs in question, East Ham and West Ham, would be subject to that guarantee, and that guarantee would come into force after taking into account any extra charge which might fall upon the inhabitants of those two county boroughs by reason of the fact that the part of the union outside the county boroughs would no longer remain in the union.

Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: Will this be done by Order?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.

Mr. BENN: Will it be subject to the approval of Parliament?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member will see the procedure set out in Clause 19, under which the Order has to come before Parliament.

Mr. BENN: Yes; it has to be printed and laid on the Table of the House.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Of course, these two county boroughs are also affected by the mitigation of liability Clause, under which the amount of the outstanding debt will be very materially reduced, and while the general principles of the change which I have now outlined would not, I think, admit of any alteration, yet before any Order is made or any action is taken under Clause 19, it would, of course, be natural for me to consult the authorities concerned upon the details of the financial adjustment.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I think the House has learnt with relief that the right hon. Gentleman at least means to end the position created in Chester-le-Street and Bedwellty, and I assume that he is doing so because they are going to be smothered in a much larger authority. In the case of West Ham, we are told the nominated Board is still to continue until 1935. The right hon. Gentleman is going to worsen the treatment of that area. As things are now, at least every six months it must come before the House as to whether that board of guardians shall continue in existence or not, and it is possible for us to debate it and to take a vote upon it, but now the right hon. Gentleman is going to continue in existence the
appointed board of guardians until the very latest date that he can keep them. This further point arises. He is not keeping in existence the board of guardians of the West Ham Union. He is keeping in existence a board of guardians of an area which has never existed in law before, and does not exist in law to-day as a Poor Law area. That is an astonishing thing to do by means of an Order. It seems to me questionable whether he has power to do that. He clearly has power under the Bill to continue in existence the West Ham Union and the other two unions, with their appointed guardians, until 1935, but I know nothing in the Bill which permits him to make a new Poor Law union area and appoint their appointed guardians.
There is this further point, which I think is of very substantial importance. In the case of the West Ham Union you have two large towns and a rather straggling area, which will go to the county. But as regards the greater part of the area he is going to keep in existence two county boroughs, which under this Act ought to have their own boards, and he is going to do it for the maximum term that he can. The truth is that he cannot forgive West Ham. He is not prepared to hand over to the county boroughs of East Ham and West Ham the powers that they ought to enjoy. He is continuing his punitive treatment of these people because in the past he has not liked their policy. I should have thought he might have made a clean sweep while he was at it. He has gone two-thirds of the way. I see no real reason why he should not have gone all the way, more especially as on Clause 5 he has an Amendment down—one of those curious Amendments expressing intention and desirability—in which he wants to insert the words:
A council in preparing an administrative scheme shall have regard to the desirability of securing that, as soon as circumstances permit, all assistance which can lawfully be provided otherwise than by way of poor relief shall be so provided.
The right hon. Gentleman stated in Committee that he wants to break up the Poor Law. He is going, until 1935, to make it impossible for these two county boroughs to take any real steps in the direction of breaking up the Poor Law. It is obvious that there can be no agree-
ment reached between the right bon. Gentleman's nominated guardians and the elected local authorities in these two county boroughs, and the Poor Law system is going to continue at its worst in a very important extra-metropolitan area. I should like to ask him if he cannot for once let bygones he bygones. I do not believe he has ever been as much afraid of Poplar as many hon. Members opposite, but he really has had an awful fright about West Ham. It is all over now. A new set of circumstances will apply in that area, and I think it is right policy to press this Amendment, which would mean that, irrespective of the circumstances of boards of guardians, whether they are elected or nominated, their functions shall be transferred to the new bodies on the appointed day, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to going a little further than he has done.

Mr. BENN: When we were engaged on another Clause in Committee there was an article in the "Times" reproving the right hon. Gentleman for his overweening desire to exercise autocratic powers in his office. That was a reference to a Clause which gave him what is euphemistically termed "power to remove difficulties." This Clause will be found to be quite as offensive to the sense of civic liberty as that famous Clause which was the subject of the reproof. Where do we stand at present? It is a difficult subject for one who is not an expert and can study only the newspapers, but I understand the position to he as follows: In certain districts where the conduct of the guardians did not meet with the right hon. Gentleman's approval, acting under the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act, he has appointed officials to take the place of the elected guardians, and they are at present discharging their duties, subject to the ordinary law, as ordinary guardians. Parliament, in giving its approval, demanded that every six months the right hon. Gentleman should state his intentions in writing, and Parliament reserved the power to negative his action. The provision was inserted at his own instigation. He had not quite the same appetite for dictatorship, or could not gratify it as fully in 1926. He was content to move a Clause which said:
Any Order made under this Section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be and if either House within 21 days of the Order presents an Address it shall be null and void.
These Orders had a duration of six months. The right hon. Gentleman is not going to remove these appointed guardians, though the reason for their existence has disappeared. The reason put forward for their appointment was that the people in the locality could not be trusted, and it was necessary to put in paid officials instead of the elected representatives of these people who were infected with Poplarism. The authorities who are going to manage the Poor Law are wider and more responsible authorities, so that the need for having this check against the infection of Poplarism has disappeared. But that does not prevent the right hon. Gentleman from putting in Clause 19. What power does he take now? The first thing he says is that the Act shall not apply in these districts, subject to certain provisions. The first is that the right hon. Gentleman can appoint straight away these officials of his Department for six years without any review by the House whatever. Why does he ask for that power to appoint them for six years when he has now only the power to appoint them for six months? There must be some reason. The next thing is that he proposes to reserve certain powers to himself. The first thing he does is that he may remove these guardians and appoint others in their place. There is no reference to us, or to the electors of the constituency, or to anyone but the Ministry of Health. I ask the House to see what is the fate of the ratepayers in these districts under this Sub-section. He may—
provide for making such adaptations in the provisions of this Act relating to grants, expenses, the transfer of property and liabilities, and the transfer, superannuation and compensation of officers, as may be necessary.
That is to say that, as regards these districts, entire power is handed over to the Ministry without any sort of Parliamentary control. The Minister ought really to justify this. A few perfunctory sentences and appeals to the Chair sheltering behind points of order are not really a sufficient defence against this sort of thing.

Mr. OLIVER STANLEY: Has the hon. Member read the whole Sub-section Does not the end rather alter it?

Mr. BENN: If the hon. Member will tell me which passage he would like, I will read it.

Mr. STANLEY: Do not the words—
as may be necessary and may provide for applying to the appointed guardians" limit the purposes for which the adaptations may be made?

Mr. BENN: May be necessary in whose view? In the opinion of whom? In our view? Not at all. In the view of the electors and ratepayers? Not at all. As may be necessary in the view of General Primo de Rivera. That is the only limitation. I am not a lawyer, but I should like to know what Court of law can determine what may be necessary. It does not say may be necessary for what. All these precious guarantees and valueless declarations of which the Bill is full, assuring local authorities that they are going to get something out of a future Parliament are even reduced in value here, because it is the Minister who determines what grants they are to get. I draw special attention to this, that whereas under the Default Act Orders had to be laid before Parliament and were subject to a humble Address which might be moved by anyone, this Bill says:
An Order under this Section shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would be subject to a humble Address. Apparently not. We might just as well have it laid in the Library or go to the Ministry and read it. It is absolutely no Parliamentary check whatever. I appeal for this Amendment on rather wider than party grounds, and ask Members in any part of the House who think it is time that some check should be put upon the growing bureaucratic appetite of Government Departments, and more particularly the Ministry of Health, that they should support us in this Amendment, or at any rate in getting some further explanation or excuse from those responsible for the Clause.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: I rise to say how pleased I am with the statement
that the Minister has just made, that this Order is not to apply to Bedwellty and Chester-le-Street. During the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill I spoke on this subject, and I am glad that my speech was so effective. I took up the point of the unfairness to the counties. It was certainly unfair to counties like Monmouth and Durham that steps should be taken which would create anomalies which would last practically for all time, powers over superannuation, systems of rating and the power to get rid of certain properties. It seemed to me that those were anomalies that required to be removed. I am very pleased that that step is to be taken.

Mr. J. JONES: I should like to say: "Great Caesar! Those about to die, salute thee!" I am thinking not of Julius, but of Judas. We have a Minister of Health who is a descendant of one of the greatest exponents of the rights of local government that this country has yet produced. The father of the right hon. Gentleman was the great protagonist of the rights of the people in localities to control their own affairs, and now it has come to this! Why is West Ham selected? Why are we put in the pillory I have on many occasions in this House said that if there is some criminal offence to be alleged against our representatives upon the boards of guardians, why not place us in the dock? Give our people the right to defend themselves. No. The right hon. Gentleman says: "I see the sands gradually closing about me. My Government cannot last for ever. As far as we are concerned, we are going to make the ground secure for ourselves. We are going to single out certain parts of the country for the purpose of preventing certain things, in which we do not believe, being carried into effect."
Poplarism has been referred to this afternoon. It is a most extraordinary thing that the place where Poplarism comes from is left free and easy. They can go on as usual, except that a Ministry of Health auditor comes along occasionally to rap them over the knuckles. In West Ham we have superannuated local government officers put over us—men who
say to a working man with a family that he must manage on 17s. a week, and that that sum is enough, while they themselves are drawing £1,700 a year in pension and salaries from the same right hon. Gentleman's Department. They cannot live on less than that amount, but a working man is expected to keep a family on 17s. a week, because he happens to be out of work, and is down and out. We are continually writing to these gentlemen in West Ham to give consideration to the people with whom they have to deal as guardians. They are not guardians of the poor, but simply guardians of the Tory party's policy in dealing with the poor. That is their only function. We cannot see them. If one writes a letter, one gets the usual stereotyped reply. There is nothing in it. We are told that inquiries are being made. By whom are the inquiries being made? They will not meet the people face to face. They will not even meet the representatives of the people. One gets simply a typewritten reply from a clerk employed by them, a clerk who dare not call his soul his own.
These are the guardians in West Ham. This type of guardian is to he abolished in Bedwellty and Chester-le-Street, but is to be continued in West Ham. Why? Why cannot the people of West Ham be trusted to express an opinion upon the kind of representation they shall have? Walthamstow is to be cut away from us. All the richer parts are to be cut away and to go to the Essex County Council. We know why. Old Chawbacon is going to be in control. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] Hon. Members know what I mean. He is the chap who thinks that a man who applies to the board of guardians for relief must receive about 25 per cent. less than an agricultural labourer. He is the kind of chap who can be used for the purpose of reducing wages. We know what is meant when we are told that one-sixth of the whole population of the West Ham Poor Law area, as at present expressed, is to be handed over to the tender mercies of people in the rural areas, whose standard of life is so much lower.
I would like to appeal to the right hon. Member for Woolwich (Sir K. Wood). He lives on the other side of the water; I wish he was under it. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the
Minister of Health to realise the situation as far as West Ham is concerned. The population of the West Ham Poor Law area, roughly speaking, is 1,000,000. What is to happen under the new scheme? East Ham and West Ham, representing, practically speaking, 60 per cent. of the total population of the Poor Law area, are to be put together as one authority. Whenever industrial depression takes place, we get it. We have always had industrial depression, because our area is one in which casual labour exists. At the docks, even in the best of times, the men never get an average of more than four days' work a week. They are lucky, to-day, if 75 per cent. of them get two days' work a week round and about the docks. I would like to take the two right hon. Gentlemen to the Victoria Docks to-morrow morning. They would see not hundreds but thousands of men turned away, as surely as the clock strikes eight—turned away, with no hope for them for that day, at any rate, and there will be no hope for a similar number of men the next day. Net, the same men but other men will he turned away as regularly as the clock strikes.
What is proposed to be done with us? East Ham and West Ham are to be one authority. What about our institutions? There is not one of the institutions, except the home for children in the East Ham area, that belongs to the new boards that are to be appointed under this scheme. All the rest of the institutions are outside the area. Are we to buy a pig in a poke? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what will happen to us in the matter of finance? It is all very well to talk about de-rating schemes, local government reorganisation, and so on, but this proposal means that we shall have to buy these institutions, because poverty happens to exist in the districts that you are chopping off? What crime have we committed that we should be treated in this way? The Minister is taking power for six years. I hope he will get six years! If any real justice existed in this country, the people who are responsible for a proposal of this character would get six years' penal servitude for callously doing a thing of this kind to a locality which has more than its fair share of the burdens and sorrows of our existing civilisation. I have come to this House
as a constitutionalist, anxious to do my best. We have men and women in our district who have been thrown off the board of guardians by order of the Minister of Health. These same people are being elected to the council by the men and women living in the locality, who know the work that they have done under the existing difficulties.
Whatever may be said against us in West Ham, we lay the flattering unction to our souls that from the financial point of view we stand higher than the London County Council, dominated as it is by the moderate Tory majority. As far as our financial position is concerned in the matter of our loan power, we stand firm. The Stock Exchange does not throw money away, and the Bank of England is not a philanthropic institution. It is falsely named; it is not a bank of England, but belongs to somebody else other than the people of England. Whatever criticisms may be made against us, we can stand our own ground. Vet we are singled out from all the municipalities in Great Britain for attack. Why? Because we were the pioneers of the political Labour movement in Great Britain. From 1892 up to now we have sent Labour men and women to our local authorities. As we advanced in power we sent Labour men and women on to the Floor of this House. Now, we have been singled out for special attack. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman has in his mind. Does he imagine that he will keep Sir Alfred Woodgate all the time? Will the next Minister of Health have the right to sack him? I hope that he will do so. If I had the power, I would not merely sack him, but I would kick him out of office.
Of all the contemptible treatment that people have ever received, we have received it in West Ham. Some hon. Members sitting on these benches have a false idea of oar position. We have no apologies to offer. What we have done we have done because we believed that we were doing right. If we have made mistakes, surely this Government ought to be the last to charge us with criminality on that account. They have done nothing else but make mistakes. They have made mistakes with their eyes open. They do not make their mistakes in ignorance. They know what they are doing. Can they justify singling out one
part of Great Britain for special attack? West Ham is no mean place. We have a population of 320,000 people in the Borough of West Ham alone, and there is a population of 200,000 in East Ham. Over half a million people are to be told that, practically speaking, they have no right to control their own affairs. They must find the money; they must levy a rate for Poor Law relief, but they have no right to say how the money shall be administered. The Minister of Health says: "I will send three of my people." The Holy Trinity, Faith, Hope and Charity, if you can get it; people who take big salaries for administering what other people administered for nothing. These guardians can have meals on the board premises. In the old days, if members of the board of guardians had meals, they were surcharged for them. Every time they had something to eat, they had to pay for it, otherwise they were surcharged. Again and again appeals had to be made to the Minister, and invariably he let them off payment.
What right has the Minister, in this Bill, to propose that he should be given power for another six years? Why six years? Why not abolish public authorities? Why not say that the town council shall be abolished? They are the same people on the council who were on the board of guardians which has been abolished. Why not bring in a special Act of Parliament, saying: "No one shall rule but the great I am, the son of Joseph"? We are not going to have Josephus the Second, seeing that we have got rid of Josephus the First. You may pass this Bill through the House. You may imagine yourselves much bigger men than you really are, but you cannot justify this policy. At the General Election, there are six seats to be fought in West Ham and East Ham—four in West Ham and two in East Ham, and they have all gone west as far as the Tory party are concerned. We have five of the seats now, and there is only one to go. The Member who holds that seat is clearing out, before he is kicked out. In spite of that public opinion, in spite of the people expressing themselves so deliberately, as they have done at the polling booths, we are to be told: "It does not matter how you vote. It does not matter what you say or do, I am going to keep control, even though
I have not the power." This is going from bad to worse; it is reaction made into a science, and as one of the representatives of West Ham, I must most emphatically protest against the discrimination made against our particular area.
If you have crimes to allege against us, put us in the pillory, and we will answer them. The men and women on the board of guardians may have committed mistakes; they may have been too generous, but what right have hon. Members opposite to charge us with being too generous when they have been giving away money to those who do not want it? The whole progress of this Bill has been one grand series of giving money to people who are not in need of it. The chairman of one brewery company said they did not want it; but they have got to have it. They are going to get £500,000 under this Bill. West Ham gets nothing. Certain factories in the area will get something, but the ordinary householder will get nothing. All they will get is more liabilities; the poor will have to keep the poor. If the right hon. Gentleman was really as sincere as he pretends to be in the matter of trying to do something for the poor, he would not single out West Ham, one of the poorest parts of Great Britain, a large centre of casual labour which has always had more than its fair share of the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune," for this kind of treatment. On the contrary, he would say, "Let the dead past bury its dead"; let the people of West Ham once more have the right to say what kind of administration they will have.
The Government by their action are insulting men and women as good and as keen as themselves. By singling out the area of West Ham for this special legislation the Government are throwing a dart at the heart of real democracy in this country, and I should not be worthy to be their representative if I did not make the strongest protest I could against such an unfair proposal. Put us on an equal basis with the rest of the country. If we have done wrong show us where we have done wrong; but, if we have not done wrong, you have no right to penalise us in this way. On behalf of the people of West Ham I protest against being told that we are different from the rest of the people in Great Britain. I
wonder if the right hon. Gentleman would have been so anxious to penalise the people of Birmingham if any such thing had happened there. At the present moment we have no rights at all; all we have to do is to pay the demands of the people who have been put over our heads, most of whom live in the West end of London and have no connection whatever with the people of the area they have to administer. Would the right hon. Gentleman treat Birmingham in the same way? He has taken the ban off Chester-le-Street and Bedwellty, but he maintains it at West Ham. The men and women in West Ham are as good as any in the country; no crime has been proved against them.
The only thing that can be said is that they have been too generous to the poor; they gave more in relief than hon. Members opposite thought was right. Jesus Christ would be convicted of criminality under such conditions. They were too good to the poor, according to hon. Members opposite who are supposed to be the standard-bearers of the Christian religion and who teach the doctrine of sharing one another's burdens! They gave one shilling more than ought to have been given. Anyone who has had to administer public funds will know that there are always people who will take advantage; tell you a long story and lead you to believe that they are worse off than they are. Some people listen to them and give them something more than they ought to have. That is the crime of the West Ham guardians. Take the administration of the Miners' Fund; I undertake to say that there are some people who will get away with it; there will be some people who will tell the tale and some local committees will probably give something more than they ought to give. Will they be charged with dishonesty because they are kindhearted? For the next six years the people of West Ham are to be told that they are not fit to exercise the franchise.
I do not know what the remedy is. It is no good our appealing to the people of West Ham. It is no good my going to the dockers and saying that they must be constitutional, that they must grin and bear it. The ground has been cut away in advance, and no matter what Government are in power after the next General Election, they will have to go on in the
old way because the right hon. Gentleman has laid it down as a law of the Medes and Persians that for the next six years the citizens of West Ham are to have no right to say who shall administer their public affairs and control their public responsibilities. That is an insult not merely to West Ham but to all democrats institutions in this country, and it comes very ill from the son of one of the greatest exponents of local government. This is Bolshevism in excelsis; the only difference is that the Bolshevists wear top hats. I protest most emphatically on behalf of West Ham. We have shouldered burdens and responsibilities which no other place in the country has shouldered. We have always borne our own burdens and done the best to meet whatever situation arose. Now we are to be told that we are not to have the right to vote our own representatives into positions of responsibility. The people who bring forward such a proposal ought to be ashamed of themselves. They should withdraw it and place us in the same position as other boroughs. They ought to give us the right to choose who shall administer our local affairs. You have done enough when you have dismembered the area of West Ham and given the richer parts of the district to the London County Council and the Essex County Council, but to bring forward such a proposal as this at this moment is not merely an insult to West Ham but to all democratic institutions in this country.

Sir K. WOOD: The Amendment raises again the question which we have already discussed in the Committee stage, namely, the action which should be taken arising out of the Government scheme in reference to those places where there are guardians appointed under the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act which was passed by the House some little time ago. It comes to this: One of the Measures which is to be repealed under one of the Schedules to this Bill is that particular Act of Parliament, and it is proposed in Clause 19 that power should be given for a limited period of time to keep in existence, subject to the terms of that Clause, the appointed guardians in the circumstances set out. As announced by my right hon. Friend, the Government only propose in the special circumstances of the case to retain these appointed guardians in the
case of one area, namely, West Ham. As far as the actual position is concerned, contrary to the speeches which we have heard this afternoon, the Default Act is to be repealed in respect of two of the three places where there are appointed guardians, and they are to exist in one place only for the particular period set out in the Clause.

Mr. BROMLEY: Why?

Sir K. WOOD: I will address myself to that matter in a moment. The most effective speech directed against this proposal came from the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn). He has endeavoured to connect Clause 19 with what is now Clause 120, known as "power to remove difficulties." This criticism came rather badly from him because he himself was a supporter of, and responsible for, a similar Clause in the National Insurance Act, 1911, in relation to which he had special responsibilities at one time for its administration. He is really one of the founders of the Clause in this Bill. Then he said that this particular Clause, and any action under it, was really the product of Clause 120 and that Clause 19, where it deals with the protection of Parliament, is absolutely waste paper; that we are, in fact, under these proposals still further limiting the power of Parliament. Under the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act we did have to come to Parliament and lay the Order on the Table of the House when it could he challenged by Parliament, but, he says, that power has now disappeared, and this is another attempt of a bureaucratic Minister to take power unto himself following on the lines outlined in Clause 120 of the Bill.
The only matter on which the hon. Member for North Aberdeen can be said to be at all accurate is when he said that this particular Sub-section would operate for six years instead of six months. I hope I am not doing the hon. Gentleman an injustice, but with that exception his speech was wholly inaccurate. If he refers to Clause 119 on page 103 of the Bill he will find a provision that an Order such as is referred to in Clause 19, has to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, that the ordinary procedure has to be followed
as is the case with the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act, and that power is given to Parliament to challenge the action of the Minister. Orders made by the Minister under that particular Act have been challenged again and again. The Order under this Bill can be challenged in just the same way. So far as the merits of the matter are concerned, the hon. Member for Nelson (Mr. Greenwood), in that kindly way which he has, said "As regards West Ham, why not let bygones be bygones? You are going to remove the ban so far as Bedwellty and Chester-le-Street are concerned, and why not let bygones be bygones in West Ham?" The hon. Member rather forgets that there is an overdraft of between £1,000,000 and £2,000,000 in West Ham.

Mr. J. JONES: On a point of Order. During the time that most, of that money was raised as an overdraft the party to which the Parliamentary Secretary belongs was in a majority on the West Ham Board of Guardians.

Mr. SPEAKER: That may or may not be so, but it is not a point of Order.

Mr. JONES: It is a point of fact.

Sir K. WOOD: Unfortunately, the £1,000,000 to £2,000,000 overdraft still remains.

Mr. JONES: And your appointed guardians are still in office.

Sir K. WOOD: For the reasons stated fully by my right hon. Friend, and because there is a great deal of difference as to the consequences of these proposals to the three places that we are discussing, it is very necessary that the appointed guardians should remain in this particular area. Few people without political prejudice on the matter would question the fact that the work which has been done by Sir Alfred Woodgate and his colleagues in West Ham has been of the most beneficent character.

Mr. JONES: Who said that?

Sir K. WOOD: It will be found as a matter that cannot be challenged—it is one of the matters to which I direct my attention—that when you come to weigh up the work of these men, one of the best parts of their record is the fact that they are getting people back to work again in that area.

Mr. JONES: It is a lie. There are more out of work to-day than when they started.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has made use of a most improper expression, and I must ask him to withdraw it.

Mr. JONES: I personally will at once. I say that the right hon. Gentleman is not telling the truth.

Mr. SPEAKER: That expression is equally improper, and the hon. Member must withdraw it.

Mr. JONES: Then I withdraw it, but the right hon. Gentleman knows that there are more men out of work now than on the day when these guardians took office.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the Parliamentary Secretary making that statement seriously in regard to Chester-le-Street?

Sir K. WOOD: I am referring to West Ham. If the hon. Gentleman doubts the accuracy of my statement, he should read the record in the last report of the appointed guardians. They anticipated that they might have to meet criticism and doubt as to the work that they were doing, and they had a special survey made of the people who had previously been in receipt of relief in the area, and they followed up the cases so as to ascertain the proportion in various districts of men and women who had obtained employment as a consequence of their efforts.

Mr. JONES: On a point of Order again. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us something from their report as to the number of people thrown out of work in order to find employment for these people who are mentioned in the report of the appointed guardians?

Mr. SPEAKER: If the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary gives way, it is open to the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) to ask a question; but he must not do so on a point of Order, because what he has said is not a point of Order.

Mr. JONES: It is a point of fact again.

Sir K. WOOD: The appointed guardians, in order to protect themselves against allegations such as have been made this afternoon, got a careful
record of the employment and the names and addresses of the employers in question. They anticipated that directly they did work of this character, it would be challenged, and that accusations would be made that they were not in fact doing what was alleged. They have been accustomed to that procedure for some time. They have followed up each of these cases and have a record of them. Therefore, apart altogether from the special circumstances arising out of the scheme in connection with this area, it will certainly be for the benefit of that particular district that this administration shall continue, because, from the record I have seen, not only has Poor Law relief diminished considerably in West Ham, but employment is increasing so far as these people are concerned, and certainly their self-respect and citizenship are being maintained.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: The right hon. Gentleman is truly mistaken if he wishes the House to believe that the effect of this Clause is not very seriously to interfere with the control of Parliament over guardians. I see that by the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act, the Minister has power from time to time, by Order, to extend the term of the guardians for a period not exceeding six months. That arrangement was made at a time when this problem was very acute, and when the Minister decided that the guardians should be suspended and specially appointed officers substituted. He took the view, I assume, that so serious and so bureaucratic was the power which he then took, that it should not be allowed to continue for more than six months without the consent of this House. That was the position then. The next year, in 1927, we had a, consolidation of the Poor Law, and, lest there might be any doubt as to whether the provision was temporary or permanent, we find in the codified Act of 1927 this qualification again, that every six months a fresh Order should be made and that it should be debatable in this House.
Now what is the position The Parliamentary Secretary tries to slide off by pointing out that under Clause 119 an Order has to be laid before Parliament. But what is the fact? That under the present Clause, 21 days elapse, during which the Order may be annulled by Prayer. But that happens only once.
Once an Order is made under this Clause, and the Prayer is not made or is unsuccessful, the appointed guardians remain in office for the whole period of five years, whereas under the law as it now stands, under the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act, the maximum period is six months. We have had no explanation of the criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn) and others, that the effect of this Clause is to take away from Parliament the power which was given it under the Guardians (Default) Act of 1926. The House is entitled to ask the Minister, quite irrespective of the merits or demerits of West Ham or any other place, why it is that, seeing that in 1926 and in 1927 it was considered that non-elected guardians should exercise jurisdiction only for six months at a time—why it is that that protection of the six months is now to be removed, and that we are asked to agree without qualification and without an Order and without Prayer and without control of the Minister in any way, to a period of six years.
I hope that the House will address itself to that point. One is familiar with the methods of debate and how these things are done. The Minister has naturally seized upon one or two minor points as to Orders and annulments, but the real major point has not been explained by the Minister or by the Parliamentary Secretary. If it is necessary to have appointed guardians, why should they not continue in office from six months period to six months period? May it not well he that circumstances which exist to-day will come to an end before the end of the period of five years, and that the general desire to end the Poor Law, which the Minister had expressed, may affect West Ham at the end of one year or two years or three years? This is another objection to the Clause: Suppose that the Minister himself wishes to abolish the appointed guardians, he will not be able to do so without getting a special Act of Parliament. If I am wrong on that point, I should like to be corrected, and if I am wrong, I share the blame with the right hon. Gentleman himself for he has already told us that the arrangement would continue not for six months.
I have looked at the Schedule to the Act. If the Minister or the learned
Attorney-General gets up and says that under this Clause an Order has still to be made every six months, we shall know where we are, and we shall know then that neither the Minister nor the Parliamentary Secretary understands his own Bill. I am not here to make a debating point, but the House will want to know whether the provision as to this six months period, is to come to an end or not. As I read the Bill, it depends on the interpretation of that part of the Schedule which deals with this matter. As I read that, it means that the power will be continued for six years which is the opinion expressed in this House only about an hour ago. If it is to go on for six years, we want to know why the provision inserted in the Act of 1926, and repeated in the Act of 1927, that the power should be renewable every six months, has come to an end. No other question is this. Supposing the Minister wishes during these six years to abolish these guardians, has he the power to do so? Possibly he has, but that is a minor point. The real point is that Parliament will lose control and that the provision as to the six months will, in any case, finish.
To that extent, I think this Clause is connected with Clause 120—"Power to remove difficulties "—which, as a newspaper has said, may be "power to increase difficulties." The connection between them is that both are instalments in the encroachment of a centralised bureaucracy. The whole tendency of the Bill is to increase the power of the central authority and decrease the power of the local authority, as well as of the individual citizen. This Clause reveals, perhaps not in quite such a marked form as Clause 120, the centralising instincts and bureaucratic minds of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. The control of Parliament in this matter is being removed for six years; and, that being so, the protest which I have made —and which I am surprised not to see supported from the other side of the House—is justified. Let the House realise that we are giving the Minister for six years a power which, so far, he has only exercised for six months at a time.

Mr. OLIVER STANLEY: I should like to pursue a point made by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn), with
that passion for individual liberty and dislike of State control which has so naturally brought him to the place where he now sits. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question about Sub-section (3, b) of this Clause. It states that an Order made under this Clause may provide for making adaptations relating to grants as may be necessary. A point upon this matter was raised by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen, and I regret that I interrupted him in error. I assumed that the power granted to the Minister was merely to make those adaptations which were necessary, mutatis mutandis, to substitute "appointed guardians "for" county or borough council "wherever those words might occur in the Act. This, in fact, is a limitation on the last part of the Sub-section:
May provide for applying to the appointed, guardians, with the necessary adaptations, the provisions of this Act relating to the mitigation of the liability of councils for temporary loans.
On reading the Clause again carefully, it does not seem to me that that limitation applies to the first part, and I should like to ask whether it is not the intention of the Government that the adaptations which the Minister is making are only those necessary for applying to the appointed guardians the provisions which now apply to the council, and that they do not intend to use this as applied to county councils.

Sir K. WOOD indicated assent.

Mr. STANLEY: If that be so, would it not he wise to make it clear in the Bill?

Mr. LAWSON: T have been very much relieved to learn that Chester-le-Street and Bedwellty are to be excluded from the operation of this Clause, but I am not prepared to hand out any bouquets to the right hon. Gentleman on that account. We have had two years of the operation of his guardians in Chester-le-Street, and we shall not soon forget that experience. We shall have these guardians administering the law in Chester-le-Street and Bedwellty for a considerable time to come. Knowing what I know about the administration of irresponsible guardians appointed by the Minister, I would be a traitor to my own knowledge and to myself if I did not support the protest which has been made against the con-
tinuance of this system even in West Ham. I therefore stand on somewhat different ground from that on which we have stood during the last two years. The fact of the matter is that, even in connection with the Default Act, the House has never yet understood the reasons for the appointment of these guardians in any of these three areas. We have had ex parte statements from the Minister—almost wholly relying on the Press—and a series of reports, in which the appointed guardians, naturally, sought to justify themselves. The conditions which arose in Chester-le-Street have never been stated except by some of us occasionally in this House after 11 o'clock at night, when we had no proper opportunity of stating them fully.
The impression left in the public mind is due to a Report issued by three administrators who had no experience of public life. Perhaps I should say that one of the former three had, but that the present three have not. I challenge investigation from any neutral-minded Member opposite in this matter, and I say they depended entirely upon statements made in a certain case, in a now famous Report, and those who made that Report would not be prepared now publicly to justify the statements which they made on that ocasion. I dare say the situation is the same in Bedwellty and pretty much the same in West Ham. Abnormal conditions prevail, and the best proof of that is that in 1920, under the elected guardians in Chester-le-Street, when the conditions were about normal, relief amounted to £29,000, whereas at the end of the last year for which we have full figures, under the appointed guardians, the relief amounted to nearly £130,000. That proves that abnormal conditions prevailed in that area, and those conditions were largely unknown to the people of this country.
Chester-le-Street was a great munition area. Ex-soldiers came and took the huts in which the people had lived. Those ex-soldiers had no homes in the towns around. Many of them got out of work and a sort of temporary war-time community was turned into a permanent community. The Government sent in ex-service men to be trained and, month after month, for a year or two, I was putting questions to the Government as to what they were going to do with those
men. The men remained and ultimately became a charge on the guardians. A great firm came into that area—a motor firm—which failed and left the bulk of its people there. A coal company failed and five or six collieries were closed down and I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that was when the matter began to show itself more particularly. That was in 1925. It, is notorious in that area that the company failed because of not too wise financial arrangements. Thus you had accumulations of people who ultimately became charged on the guardians in that area. I have never yet heard any real reason for supplanting the elected guardians in Chester-le-Street other than that during 1926 the guardians insisted on giving relief to able-bodied men.
7.0.p.m.
That was the definite charge against them. It may have been that there was something to be surcharged; that there was something, perhaps, to be justified to the auditor, but I think our people were right in giving able-bodied men relief, and I say that in similar circumstances the same thing would be done again. This House would probably agree with that view, if they understood all about the administration in that area. That was the reason why the Chester-le-Street Guardians were superseded. We pressed the Minister to give reasons for bringing them under the Default Act and the most we could get was that they had given young able-bodied men relief. There has been no judicial investigation, and I venture to say that in spite of wild statements, no Member of this House, of any party, could give a sound reason or clear statement as to why the Chester-le-Street, Bedwellty and West Ham guardians were unseated except what they have read in the newspapers. We know what was said in the newspapers. We have heard the right hon. Gentleman repeat those statements. That is all he has clone. There has not yet been, as I say, a judicial investigation into the conditions prevailing in those areas. There were wild statements in these reports—statements so bad that there were threats of taking the matter into Court. The right hon. Gentleman and his chief said that they put the papers in the hands of the Attorney-General. They are still there, and nothing further has
been heard of them. They knew that the statements that were made to justify the appointment of those guardians were rumours and legends that could not be justified by the facts. How long is this House going to be satisfied with mere rumours, with statements in the Press, with statements made by Ministers based purely upon political prejudice, as reasons for violating the principles of democracy in this country?
I am not going to exploit the revelations recently made about Chester-le-Street. In the main, those revelations spring from the administration of poor relief there by the appointed guardians. In Chester-le-Street it is much better to go into the union, or to be a criminal, or to be in an asylum than to get relief from the guardians. The cost of keeping a person in the unions throughout the country, taking the average for men, women and children, is 24s. 2d. a week. In Chester-le-Street a woman and four children only get 20s. The result is that the capacity of the workhouse has been taxed in an abnormal way. They have not room for the people who ask to go into the workhouse there. They have continually to refuse admission into the workhouse to young men. Will anyone in this House justify such a state of things? Will any hon. Member justify paying 20s. a week for a mother and four children, or rather for six persons, including the father? Would the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister of Health justify the regular scale in Chester-le-Street of 20s. a week for six persons? In the particular case I mention, the able-bodied man who receives no relief has served 25 years in the Army. To-day, he receives no unemployment benefit, and gets no relief, while his wife gets only 20s. to keep herself, four children, and her husband. What does the House think of an administration of that kind? No one dares stand up and justify it, but it is the regular scale. It is true that they are not going to continue those gentlemen in Chester-le-Street, and we shall he very glad to see their backs. None of them has had a single day's experience in public life, or in administration.
The right hon. Gentleman has told the House that we are going to have the Orders laid upon the Table. Everybody knows that amounts to nothing.
because they are taken after eleven o'clock at night and the House simply accepts the statements which the right hon. Gentleman reads, statements made in the Press which he has never taken any care to justify. They suit his purpose, and that is good enough. It is in that manner that we are violating the principles of democracy as applied to local government and handing over the care and well-being of great masses of the people to three gentlemen appointed by the Minister, mostly of his own political colour, who are not in the long run responsible to anyone. They are not responsible to the Minister, to the House, or to the people. In no case in this country has anyone such complete power as is put into their hands is these guardians. When you ask a question of the Minister, he says that it is a matter for the guardians. When you ask the guardians, they tell us, the elected representatives, that we have nothing to do with it. The Minister sends our letters to them, and they send them back. Even though the Minister has his own private opinion about their administration, they still continue in their own sweet way. I repeat that I do not believe that the Minister or any Member dare justify the scale of payments paid in Chester-1e-Street, which has contributed towards the poverty and disgraceful state of affairs that has been revealed there. Long before there was a Lord Mayor's Fund, there would have been eases of people found dead of starvation if it had not been for decent people throughout the country, and for the little help that has come from those on our side.
My experience in the last few years has been the same as that of members for other areas where these appointed guardians are operating. We have been handing out boots and clothes and heading stories of people receiving no relief. Week in, week out, after leaving this House, we have heard nothing but the sad stories of these people who receive no benefit and very little or no relief. I would like to give my need of praise to the people in this country who realised what the situation was in such an area as ours, and who came to our rescue. If it had not been for them, it passes imagination what the condition of things would be. It would have been far better, more decent, and more efficient if the
elected representatives of the people had been dealing with the needs of the people efficiently. After all, what were they doing? They were simply administering the revenue that came from the people who elected them. They were there to be questioned or challenged. I do not care bow grave are the charges that are made against a place like West Ham. If they were carried to the worst form of maladministration, that is their concern and that does not justify us in violating the principles of democratic election. We have had these guardians for two years, and we look like having them for another year. It would be a good thing if Members opposite would demand a judicial inquiry into their operations in order to find out the result of their work. It would be discovered, however efficient and experienced they may be—and in the case of Chester-le-Street they have neither efficiency nor experience—that their work is not as satisfactory as it may seem to be. The Minister of Health would have been well advised to abandon this system altogether. He may tell the House that it is satisfactory and has reduced expenditure, but he must admit that this system has not worked out so satisfactorily as it seems to have done on the surface.
The people of this country have a right lo elect their own members, and the results are their own concern. This violation of the democratic method of election is a very dangerous thing, and is really big with dangers to this country. The day may come when we are sitting on the benches opposite with a majority. I do not see why the hon. Gentleman should look so surprised at that statement after recent events. It is within the bounds of possibility anyhow that we shall be sitting over there, and, supposing we begin unseating guardians because we think they are giving insufficient relief, in some of the more rural areas where we know that certain things take place, that may be a very dangerous thing. There is no one who wants to see the very life of our institutions, whether local or national, sapped, and I say that this is a very dangerous principle. I am pleased to stand with West Ham, because, as in the case of Chester-le-Street, all the things that have been said about them have been merely statements made in interested newspapers. There has been no judicial investigation, and
Without any real evidence at all this House has accepted the statements and the actions of the Minister. The Government would be very well advised if they had abandoned this system altogether and admitted as a failure what really has been a very bad failure.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) has taken the opportunity of making some observations as to the operations of the appointed guardians in his constituency, and nobody can complain of the hon. Member taking any opportunity which he is able to get within the Rules of this House. He has repeated a number of the criticisms which have been made on the many occasions upon which this matter has come before the House, but he used one expression this evening which I think throws a good deal of light on the point of view from which he approaches the question, when he said that, assuming the guardians who have been superseded did commit some crime or offence, after all it was the funeral of the people who elected them. There the hon. Member disclosed a vicious way of thinking of the responsibilities of elected persons. Not even the fact that people who commit an injustice are elected by a majority of the people to whom they are responsible can excuse that injustice, and, when the hon. Member talks of the mistakes which they have made being the funeral of the persons who elected them, he forgets that in Chester-le-Street there is a minority—[Interruption.] If I have misunderstood the hon. Member he will correct me, but I think I have understood him aright, and T merely make this comment, in passing, that his defence of the guardians on the ground that, if they have made mistakes, it is the funeral of the persons who elected them, overlooks the fact that there is a higher interest even than the interests of the persons who elected the people who committed the mistakes.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: On the same principle, what redress at this moment have the great mass of the people who have elected the Government?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The right hon. Gentleman has made a notable contribution to the Debate. Unless I am wrong, it is the first contribution,
or almost the first, that either he or the Leader of his party has been able to make to the Debates on this Bill.

Mr. LAWSON: I want the Attorney-General to be quite clear. I did not admit that the Chester-le-Street guardians had made mistakes. I never have admitted it.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I quite understand that. The hon. Gentleman's admission was a rhetorical one, an admission that, assuming they did make mistakes, at any rate it was their funeral. All that I desire to do is to call attention to that vice in his argument, as I think it is, because it does overlook the rights of minorities. I do not propose to enter into a discussion of the merits of the appointed guardians in Chester-le-Street, or even in West Ham or East Ham. There will be an opportunity for discussing those matters when the Order comes before the House, if it is made, in accordance with the provisions of this Bill when it becomes law; but I will take the opportunity of referring to one other habit of mind which is noticeable in hon. Members opposite. Whenever there is a provision put into a Bill, as there is in Clause 119 of this Bill, that Parliament shall have an opportunity of approving or disapproving an Order, hon. Members opposite are very fond of telling us that that means nothing, because Parliament is quite certain to do what Ministers propose. Yet, on the other hand, supposing Ministers take power to do something without coming to Parliament, hon. Members say "How monstrous that they should do something without asking Parliament to approve it." It really passes my understanding why hon. Members who profess to believe so much in the interests of democracy, and the particular expression of democracy which this House represents, can be so contemptuous of the decision of Parliament as to the wisdom or otherwise of an Order which is laid before Parliament. I believe it is a safeguard which all parties in the House recognise and value that Ministerial Orders should be submitted to Parliament for affirmation or rejection; and that power will be found in Clause 119.
The hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) asked two or three questions, which it was my only purpose, on rising, to answer. His
first question was with reference to the period of the Order, if it is made, under Clause 19 of the Bill. An Order, if made, will be for the period stated in the Clause. The Boards of Guardians (Default) Act, which was repeated in Section 220 of the Poor Law Act, will no longer be in existence. Perhaps, in passing, I may remind the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street that if his party came into office and were minded, as he suggested, to dispossess some guardians or some administrators of the Poor Law in a rural district, they would no longer have the power do it, because the provisions would have been repealed a very long time before they came into power. The first answer, therefore, is that the Order will not be an Order for six months, but for the period contemplated in the Section to which the hon. and learned Member referred.
The second question was as to the reason for repealing the provision which at present requires the Minister to come to Parliament every six months. The object is this. The Minister has decided that he will ask Parliament to put a definite term to the period of the guardians who will now continue the appointed guardians in the West Ham and East Ham district. They will not go on indefinitely. If the existing law were continued, nobody would know whether their period of office would come to an end next year, or in five years or in 10 years. Now we know that they cannot continue after the period of six years—I think a date in 1935—and the object of setting a fixed term to their office is to allow the re-establishment of that spirit of independence and general healthiness of local administration which it is hoped will enable the new authority, when they come into office, to carry out their duties with success and satisfaction to all members of the community.
The third question asked was whether this Order, having once been made and affirmed by this House, is to be like the laws of the Medes and Persians. The hon. and learned Member said that, if it once came before the House and was approved, the House would never again have an opportunity of considering it. There, again, hon. Members opposite are fond of telling everybody, including themselves, that their access to office is so near and so certain that they will be
able to put everything right, and I hope it will comfort the hon. and learned Member, if he really believes that, to know that in Sub-section (2) of Clause 119 an Order may be made repealing or varying any Order that my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Health may have made. Therefore, I venture to think that hon. Members opposite will find that every possible avenue is open to them and that, whether they come into office or remain on that side of the House, Parliament will have an opportunity of considering it.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I find the Attorney-General's argument in regard to the responsibility of the elected guardians in Chester-le-Street more ingenious than convincing. He is very concerned now about the condition of the minority in Chester-le-Street, but, if that line were always taken in every matter, legislation would be almost impossible. The present Government have inflicted themselves upon this House for many years against its will, because it has been a minority Government, and other Governments From time to time have done the same thing; and it is within the knowledge of most of us that many Orders have been passed by this House under which minorities have suffered, and that people have gone to prison and had their homes sold up because they refused to obey the law, but no proposal was ever made to put autocratically appointed governors in the place of those Ministers.
If the appointed guardians of Bedwellty and Chester-le-Street are to go, I do not know why they cannot go in West Ham as well, excepting, of course, that the powers there are not quite the same, but are exercised in rather a different manner. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) seemed to assume that the party opposite is concerned about the democratic theory of government, but he should know that that is something to which they pay lip service only, and I have always described the actions of the Minister of Health in particular as the application of a British form of Fascism, to which the Government and their supporters in the Press are rapidly advancing. I believe this Bill is intended in the main to be a strengthening of autocratic powers instead of democratic powers. It is an attempt on the part of the Government to shift
responsibility and power from popularly appointed guardians to bodies that exercise a more autocratic power.
I expect the Conservative Government to do what they are doing, and to strengthen those powers for which they stand, namely, the conservation, as far as possible, of the thing that is by every possible means in their power. I protest against their action, but I do not expect they will alter it. I should be surprised if they did, but they must not expect

that, if ever we get on that side of the House, we shall be diverted in the slightest degree from doing all that we desire to do, not because of what they may think, but for the same reason that they are doing it, namely, because we shall have the power and shall hold it, hacked by the benches behind us.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes,221; Noes, 128.

Division No. 193.]
AYES.
[7.31 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Ellis, R. G.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Alexander, sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
England, Colonel A.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
McLean, Major A.


Atkinson, C.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Macmillan, Captain H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fielden, E. B.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Balniel, Lord
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. steel


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Frece, sir Walter de
Makins, Brigadier-General E


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis I.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Margesson, Captain D.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Gates, Percy
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Berry, Sir George
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Bethel, A.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Melter, R. J.


Sevan, S. J.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Goff, Sir Park
Meyer, Sir Frank


Bird. E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Brass, Captain W.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Morrison, H. (Wilts. Salisbury)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hacking, Douglas H.
Morrison-Bell. Sir Arthur Clive


Briggs, J. Harold
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Briscoe, Richard George
Hamilton, Sir George
Newton, Sir D. G.C (Cambridge)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hammersley, S. S.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G.(Ptrst'ld.)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Harland, A.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hartington, Marquess of
Oakley, T.


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Campbell, E. T.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Carver, Major W. H.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd,Henley)
Penny, Frederick George


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Perring, Sir William George


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Pilcher, G.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Raine, Sir Walter


Christie, J. A.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Ramsden, E.


Clayton, G. C.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Horilck, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hurd, Percy A.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hurst, Gerald B.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Colman, N. C. D.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Remer, J. R.


Conway, Sir W. I. artin
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cooper, A. Cuff
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Cope, Major Sir William
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Ropner, Major L.


Couper, J. B.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Ross, R. D.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lamb, J. Q.
Rye, F. G.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Salmon, Major I.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Crookshank,Cot.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Loder, J. de V.
Sandon, Lord


Dawson, Sir Philip
Looker, Herbert William
Savery, S. S


Duckworth, John
Lougher, Lewis
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Eden, Captain Anthony
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Shepperson, E. W.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lumley, L. R.
Skelton, A. N.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Spender-Cay, Colonel H.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Waddington, R.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Wragg, Herbert


Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)



Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Watts, Sir Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wells, S. R.
Major The Marquess of Titchfield and Sir Victor Warrender.


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)



Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Ammon, Charles George
Hardie, George D.
Sakiatvala, Shapurji


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Harris, Percy A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Barr, J.
Hayes, John Henry
Scurr, John


Bellamy, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Benn, Wedgwood
Hirst, G. H.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shinwell, E.


Bondfield, Margaret
Hollins, A.
Short. Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Briant, Frank
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sitch, Charles H.


Broad, F. A.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bromfield, William
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bromley, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snoll, Harry


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stamford, T. W.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stephen, Campbell


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)
Sullivan, J.


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Clarke, A. B.
Kennedy, T.
Taylor, R. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Lawrence, Susan
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Clynes, Right Hon. John R.
Lawson, John James
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Compton, Joseph
Lee, F.
Thome, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cove, W. G.
Livingstone, A. M.
Thurtle, Ernest


Crawfurd, H. E.
Longbottom, A. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Lowth, T.
Tomilnson, R. P.


Day, Harry
Lunn, William
Townend, A. E.


Dennison, R.
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Viant, S. P.


Dunnico, H.
Mackinder, W.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Edge, sir William
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwllty)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Gibbins, Joseph
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Gillett, George M.
March, S.
Wellock, Wilfred


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maxton, James
Welsh, J. C.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Montague, Frederick
Wiggins, William Martin


Greenall, T.
Morris, R. H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Purcell, A. A.



Hall, F. (York. W. R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Paling.

CLAUSE 4.—(Administrative Schemes.)

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND TROYTE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 36, after the first word "county," to insert the words
in consultation with representatives of district councils or combinations of such councils having populations exceeding five thousand according to the census of nineteen hundred and twenty-one.
This Amendment is simply designed to ensure that there shall be consultations between the county councils and the district councils before schemes are prepared and submitted to the Minister. Under the Bill as it stands, there is no
such opportunity for consultation, and it, would be much better that the consultation should take place before the scheme is submitted to the Minister. The district councils regard the present arrangement with great suspicion, because they fear that they will have no chance of having their views considered. An Amendment similar to this was considered during the Committee stage, when it was proposed that all district councils should be consulted. Under this Amendment, however, it will be necessary only to consult those district councils which have a population of 5,000, or
a combination of district councils making up a total of 5,000. That will reduce the number of consultations by 40 to 50 per cent. It was rightly pointed out on the Committee stage that to consult all the district councils would be cumbersome and would cause delay, but, by putting in the limit of 5,000—a figure to which I do not bind myself—the delay will be very much reduced, and it will make it easier for consultations to take place. Everyone must be agreed of the importance of county councils and district councils working together in perfect harmony in preparing these schemes, but, if the district councils are suspicious of the county councils, and feel that they are being left out in the cold, we shall not have that harmony. This Amendment would lead to a smoother and more effective working of the scheme.

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not at all unsympathetic with the purpose which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) has in mind, and I agree with him that it is desirable that there should be the utmost possible harmony and co-operation between county councils and the district councils in the matter in which they will have to work together. We are, however, faced with the same difficulty which I put before the House on the Committee stage. The time for the preparation and submission of schemes and their approval by the Minister is strictly limited. My hon. and gallant Friend seems to think that he has got over that difficulty by introducing a limitation of population, but I do not think that gets over the difficulty. I anticipate that these schemes, which are prepared by the county councils which contain a number of representatives of the districts, will not be made without some extended knowledge of the desires of the districts. In Clause 8, we have provided that, when the county council submit a scheme to the Minister, they must at the same time send a copy to the district council, so that they may have material upon which to base any representations to the Minister. In making that provision, I have gone as far as I can without jeopardising the possibility of getting schemes prepared and
approved by the Minister in time to come into operation on the appointed day. I regret, therefore, that I cannot accept the Amendment, but I do not expect that any serious difficulty will arise on this matter in view of the Amendment that has already been made to Clause 8.

Sir EDMUND TURTON: I am very sorry to have to differ from my hon. and gallant Friend, who has assisted the county councils throughout the consideration of this Bill, but I think his proposal would probably lead to friction. We have every desire to work most harmoniously with the district councils, and I think this proposal might very likely give rise to a good deal of trouble, and possibly a certain amount of irritation, and unquestionably very much longer time would he taken over the preparation of these different schemes. Surely this is a matter for which the county councils must themselves be absolutely responsible. As the Minister has pointed out, these schemes must first be submitted to the Minister, then they have to be published in the papers circulating in the district, and district councils themselves are to have a copy of the scheme sent to them. In these circumstances, surely it is better to leave the county council responsible for the scheme, and if, subsequently, representations are made by the district councils on any matter, full weight can be given to their views and the scheme can, if necessary, be amended. I suggest it is far better to leave the Bill as it stands and to make the county councils responsible for the schemes.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: In view of what has been said by the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. WITHERS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 42, at the end, to insert the words:
In so far as such scheme relates to hospitals the council shall consult with representatives of the voluntary hospitals in its area in the preparation of the scheme.
When you, Sir, dealt with my proposed New Clause a few minutes ago, you said you did not call it because the subject matter could be better deal with on my subsequent Amendments. Accordingly in moving this Amendment, I would like also to draw attention to an Amend-
ment standing in my name to Clause 6, which deals with the same question. What I wish to secure is that there shall be consultation between the public assistance committees, when formed, and the workers for the voluntary hospitals. The object of this series of Amendments is to provide the most efficient service for the sick after the scheme has come into operation. The voluntary hospitals have a very high standard of efficiency in their technical work, and there is an admirable spirit behind that work. When the county councils take over the local infirmaries it is very important indeed that there should be co-operation between what will be the county council hospitals and the voluntary hospitals, because, if not, there will be overlapping, and trouble will arise. It must be disastrous to the voluntary hospitals if the impression is given that these two classes of hospitals are in competition. It is very important indeed that they should work in harmony together, and that it should be understood that the one is not going to supersede the other. Therefore, I hope the Minister will help in some way by indicating to the public assistance committees that in the drawing up of these schemes there must be co-operation on these lines. I cannot do more than raise this question in a series of Amendments and I hope the point I have put forward may have the favourable consideration of Minister.

Major GLYN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Here, again, I sympathise with the object of my hon. and learned Friend. I certainly think that any county council in preparing a scheme must have regard to the voluntary hospital provision already existing in the area. It is quite obvious that no scheme which professed to deal with the hospital services of the area could really be adequate unless it took account of the existing accommodation in the voluntary hospitals. Therefore, I am in full sympathy with his general idea that there should be consultation and co-operation between the two classes; but I do not think it would be possible to include here this particular Amendment. It must be obvious, if you are to provide for consultation with representatives of the voluntary hospitals, that logically, you
cannot stop there. There are other voluntary associations doing work which is on parallel lines with some of the work which it will be the duty of the county councils to perform, and if they are to consult with the representatives of the voluntary hospitals, it will be only logical to say they must consult also with the representatives of these other associations. But there is another practical difficulty, and that is that neither the voluntary hospitals nor these other bodies are organised. There is no organisation or system by which they can, as a body, consult with the county council. There may be organisations in some districts, but not in most districts. To make this a statutory provision would be a mistake. My own view is that consultation and cooperation will take place between the voluntary hospitals and the public authorities, but I think it would not be acceptable to the local authorities if we were to try to lay down precisely and exactly how that consultation and cooperation were to be carried out.

Mr. E. BROWN: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has taken that point of view, because it is very important that the voluntary hospitals should be considered in any scheme of reorganisation. In the Bill we are being asked, for the first time, to unify and place under one control all the institutions now serving the public health, either under the county borough on the one hand or the county council on the other; and then, I understand, the idea is to make a selection amongst those institutions of those which are most likely to be best suited for particular services. For example, one building may be the best suited for tuber-culous cases, one for maternity cases, and so forth. Surely when a survey is to be made of a whole area, the first thing to be taken into consideration is what accommodation for the treatment of poor people is available outside the public health services.
The hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Withers) has raised a very important point indeed, because if the Bill is to reach its goal on its idealistic side the most careful consideration must be given to all institutions. An hon. Member smiles, but I repeat what I have said—there is here a great ideal, at any rate, for which much can be said, and that is to secure the concen-
tration of the public health services under one control. When that is being done, surely we must take into consideration not merely the institutions which at the moment are under the local authorities and the others which are under the Poor Law guardians, but also the institutions which are in voluntary hands.
I do not think the answer of the right hon. Gentleman is quite convincing regarding the lack of organisations for effecting co-ordination. The King Edward Hospital Fund would form a coordinating body for the whole of London, and I have no doubt that in each area arrangements could be made to secure the representation of all the institutions. The crux of the whole matter is what use we are going to make of all the institutions, and in considering the precise use to which we are going to put the existing public institutons we ought not to leave out of consideration the voluntary hospitals and what those who have done such magnificent work in connection with them have to say as to the effect of the scheme on their particular institutions. There is a good deal more to be said on this subject than has been said just now by the Minister.

Major GLYN: In rural areas there are a large number of workers who have for a very long time been contributing so much a week to particular voluntary hospitals, and it would be very hard on these men if by any ill-chance a scheme did not take into account the enormous amount of work done as a result of the 1½d. a week which men are contributing to these hospitals in this way. I have in my mind the Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford, which I think was one of the first voluntary hospitals. Many members of friendly societies are also contributing to such voluntary hospitals. I think those who are interested in hospital work feel that the Voluntary Hospitals Association or an organisation of that kind—even an ad hoc organisation specially created—ought to be taken into consultation in connection with these schemes. Knowing the right hon. Gentleman's personal interest in these matters, I think that if it is not possible to include the words of the Amendment it may yet be possible for him to give such directions from the Ministry as will ensure that these hospitals are brought into any
scheme, and to ensure that men who have been contributing to these hospitals for many years are not damnified by any scheme which is put into operation for the improvement of the general health of the people. I do not think we can improve upon the service given in the country districts by these great institutions, which in some instances, I think, are afraid of their work suffering under a scheme in the preparation of which the people in the towns will have had a good deal to say. I hope the Minister may be able to do something to assure these hospitals that their position will not suffer.

Mr. BENN: I have had one or two letters on this subject from residents in my constituency; I daresay the Scottish Bill will in this respect follow the lines of the English Bill. I am surprised and disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to accept the Amendment, which is not either formidable or drastic. We have heard so much about the co-ordination which is to be effected by the Bill that it is surprising that the right hon. Gentleman cannot support this piece of co-ordination. One is tempted to recall the record of this Government with respect to hospitals. It would be out of order to remind the right hon. Gentleman that under the safeguarding provisions the Government tax their drugs. Then the Government de-rate breweries and distilleries, which fill the hospitals, and refuse to de-rate the hospitals, which are forced to make a public protest against the increase of their assessments. Two days ago a document was published showing that the assessment of the hospitals are actually being raised. These things are a strange record for a. Ministry of Health.

Sir ROBERT SANDERS: While I have great sympathy with the view that the hospitals should have their say in whatever arrangements are come to, I think this Amendment is a purely theoretical Provision to deal with a difficulty which does not exist. I think you will find that on every county council in the country there is someone who represents every hospital and can speak for it, so that already we have there men who understand the work which the hospitals are doing. In practice, though not in theory, they are there to represent the hospitals, and the hospitals will not suffer by the omission of these words.

8.0 p.m.

Colonel GRETTON: There is a fear among those responsible for the management of voluntary hospitals and among large numbers of people who support them, that this Bill will damage them. The Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend is intended to allay their fears and safeguard their position to some extent. I do not wish to repeat arguments which have already been made, but I have two considerations to put forward. I have had a good deal to do with the management of two small local hospitals. No one who has not had that
experience can realise the real difficulties of these institutions, which are supported by all classes and all sections of the community and who all have their representatives on the managements. The right hon. Gentleman does not perhaps realise how very deep this feeling is, not only in the country districts but in the large cities also. The large hospitals in the country, no less than the hospitals in the metropolis, should be taken into consultation in these matters, because they are schools of medicine; they are the ground where the medical profession receives its training, and they will not be superseded by the system which the right hon. Gentleman has set up. I very much regret the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman has taken up.

Mr. HARRIS: I realise the difficulty of finding appropriate words, but I think that, if the Minister had sympathy with the Amendment, he would find ways of meeting that difficulty. The London County Council has already considered this problem so far as London is concerned; and our way is comparatively easy. In London, we have an immense opportunity to make something like a perfect hospital system for the metropolitan area. Once the infirmaries are taken over, it will be possible to specialise and to make each infirmary into a hospital dealing with one particular side of disease. Already, the county council is working out a scheme which will co-ordinate the voluntary hospitals with his new health system. I would suggest that any word which may be put into the Bill will not be received with opposition from the central authority in London, although, even without these words, the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers) may rely, so
far as London is concerned, on the co-operation of the local authority.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 5.—(Provisions as to alternative powers of giving assistance.)

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 4, line 5, to leave out the words "An administrative," and to insert instead thereof the words:
A council in preparing an administrative scheme shall have regard to the desirability of securing that, as soon as circumstances permit, all assistance which can lawfully be provided otherwise than by way of poor relief shall be so provided, and accordingly any such.
I am introducing this Amendment in order to carry out an undertaking which I gave in Committee to put into this Clause some sort of a statement of the intentions of the Government and of Parliament, which would indicate what I think a good many hon. Members in various parts of the House wish to see indicated, not merely that an administrative scheme should be made, and that certain functions could be carried out under the special Acts which are mentioned in Clause 5, but that it was the intention that these functions should be carried out when the opportunity permitted. We had a Debate at some length on the Committee stage, and I stated then that there did not seem to be very much difference in theory between hon. Members opposite and those of us on this side. We all look forward to endeavouring to treat persons who are suffering from various ailments as far as possible alike, but I pointed out at that time that it was not of the slightest use stating that everybody should be treated so at once, because it would be necessary that the institutions should be adapted to the new purposes, and in some places the institutions do not exist. There are many areas where there are not sufficient institutions to carry out the intentions of this Clause. I said then that I should be willing to put words into the Clause which would state what was the intention of the Government. In spite of all the remarks which were made by hon. Members opposite about the uselessness of declaratory Clauses—and some hon. Members opposite have stated both views, that they are useful and that they are of no use—they asked for a declaration of this kind, and I hope that they will welcome it very warmly.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman is quite right when he puts on us the responsibility for asking for a declaration of his intentions. I have said on more than one occasion that I very strongly disapprove of declarations of intention in Acts of Parliament. I have said that they meant nothing, that they involved nobody, that they did not impose obligations, and that they are merely pious expressions. This particular declaration falls into that category. What is the right hon. Gentleman's argument against making this Clause mandatory straight away? It is that the institutions are not there. That is not an answer to the case. The argument that was always used when it was proposed to raise the school age was that the schools were not there, but the schools were never brought into existence until after the school-leaving age had been raised. That must always be so. If you are to wait for the time when local authorities will develop their institutions to a point which will make it possible to completely break up the Poor Law, you will have to wait for ever. The right hon. Gentleman has delayed the settlement of the powers of West Ham Board of Guardians until a definite date in 1935. If he wants to keep his powers, I agree that he might as well limit the time, and I think there is no reason why he should not have said here: "It is true at the moment that these institutions are not there, but they shall be there by the time I take my hands off the West Ham Board of Guardians, say in 1935." This Clause does not carry any single local authority any distance whatever. It will still be open to it to continue to administer the Poor Law in the old way. It will have regard to the desirability of doing it differently, but it is unlikely to do so.
At the present time, the care of the destitute is under two kinds of authorities, municipal authorities or other local authorities on the one hand, and the Poor Law authorities on the other. There is no reason why, with the fusion of institutions and forces and with a time limit, you should not have put into the Bill an instruction to local authorities to develop on these lines. I am not certain that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's statement that, so far as theory is concerned, we are not divided. I think we are divided in this sense, that.
the right hon. Gentleman believes that we can break up the Poor Law while still leaving the unemployed to the local authorities, whereas we have never held that view, and I do not believe that we ever shall hold it. But, outside the maintenance of the poor, it is true that the right hon. Gentleman has agreed with the view which we have held on this side for 20 years, and we welcome him into our ranks. The difficulty over Clause 5 is that he will not grasp the nettle, that he will not make it mandatory upon local authorities to prepare their schemes so that they shall break up the Poor Law and deal with various phases of destitution according to need. I think he is merely putting something into the Clause to meet the criticisms of some hon. Gentlemen on the other side, because this Clause cannot meet the situation.
I have my own views as to whether the right hon. Gentleman will put in a time limit; but the only way to achieve what he has in mind is to make the Clause mandatory. This method of expressing hopes, of giving a little advice to local authorities in Acts of Parliament, does not seem to me to be the way to do it. I have no strong objection to this Amendment. I shall not divide against it. I do not think it means very much. If it persuades a single local authority to honour it in the direction of breaking up the Poor Law, I shall be very glad; but we are not thanking the right hon. Gentleman for a great deal in this Amendment. He has noticed that gratitude is not one of my greatest qualities; but, so far as this goes, we do not object to this form of words, although we would have preferred much stronger provision which would have put in some specified date making the breaking up of the Poor Law compulsory on all local authorities.

Mr. E. BROWN: I wish the Minister had gone a little further and left out the word "may." I think it is a pity that the word "shall" was not inserted in the first line of the Clause. It is obvious that we may have one area preparing a scheme carrying this Clause into effect and another area may not do so. The feeding of school children is carried out under the Education Acts and not under the Poor Law. If it should happen that a county does not make a scheme to carry out the declarations of this Clause, then
you are putting the feeding of the children under the Poor Law, and that seems to me to be a step backward. If the word "shall" had been inserted into the Clause, then we should have had a uniform system of schemes so that we should have got every possible service for the poor people which could be given under the Public Health Acts and not under the Poor Law. I welcome the Amendment.

Mr. ELLIS: I welcome this Amendment, but I do not accept the view that it should have been made mandatory throughout the Clause. Whenever we have come across anything connected with the question of retaining the services of the guardians, and especially women guardians, it has always been pointed out that such a proposal would have the effect of preventing them having an opportunity of serving on these committees. If this Clause had been made mandatory, it is more than probable that a great deal of the work would have been turned over to existing committees by the local authorities, and there would not have been room for a great many of the guardians, and more especially women guardians, to take up work of the kind which is dealt with in other parts of the Bill.
We are not going very far wrong by simply suggesting to the local authorities what is the hest thing for them to do, but we should not compel them to do these things against their will. If these various public assistance committees succeed in attracting the guardians who have hitherto done the work, and if this work is transferred under the Clause as amended, it is quite possible that a great many of them may be induced to take up public work and come on to the public assistance committees, whereas if the Clause had been mandatory they might have shied badly at the whole thing. This Clause will leave practically nothing to be dealt with but destitution, apart from the ordinary work which a local authority can do at the present time. I do not think the Labour party, after having asked for the breaking up of the Poor Law, should complain now that they have got it, or at any rate the beginning of it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 4, line 29, to leave out the word "Where."
The Clause, as it is worded, seems a direct negation of the Amendment which the Minister of Health has just moved, which apparently assumes that only in a few cases counties will hand over the education of Poor Law children to the education authorities. The trend of thought during the last quarter of a century has been that the less children are associated with the Poor Law the better for the country and the better for the children, because it gives them a better chance of becoming good citizens and maintaining their self-respect. The Parliamentary Secretary is well aware of the districts which have been most successful in this connection. Take, for example, the Bethnal Green Guardians, who have established a fine institution for children in the county of Essex. In years gone by the Bethnal Green Guardians used to attend to the education and the training of the children in their institutions, but the more modern conception is that the education of Poor Law children is done more efficiently in the ordinary elementary schools. Under the more modern system, the Poor Law children mix with the other children of the district; they get the ordinary education which is given to other children, and the general effect has been most satisfactory. Many of our Poor Law children have clone very well and obtained good jobs, and, whether they have remained in this country or gone to the Dominions, they have in most cases proved successful.
To suggest, as this Clause does, that a scheme may he adopted which would retain the education of the children under the old clumsy machinery of the Poor Law instead of adopting the scheme to bring the education of the children under the Education Act of 1921 is giving a wrong lead to the county authorities, and it is putting into their minds the idea that the children should he kept outside the ordinary machinery of the Education Act of 1921. I want to make this duty mandatory, and make it clear to the authorities who are responsible that it is their duty to come into touch with the local education authorities and send their Poor Law children to the ordinary schools, so that they may get the advantage of going up the ladder of the local education authority organisation outside the Poor Law. I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary would be well
advised to take a leaf out of the book of the Minister of Health, and say that he is prepared to be persuaded by reason to make a concession in this direction.

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir K. WOOD: I think the House will be in agreement with the argument which the hon. Gentleman has just put forward, and it is the desire and the object of the Government as quickly as possible to bring about what he desires. The only reason why I cannot accept his Amendment is one with which I think he will agree when I put it before him. It is that there are still, and will be when the Bill becomes law, a certain number of large residential schools which at the present time belong to the guardians, and which cannot be taken over by the authority under the Education Act; and it may be difficult, pending the provision of new buildings, for the children to be brought to the existing elementary schools, or for the school buildings of the residential schools to be separated and brought under the charge of the education authority. It is simply for that reason, which is more a physical reason than anything else, that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. HARRIS: Would it not be possible to hand over these educational institutions to the local education authority?

Sir K. WOOD: No, I do not think so; we are advised that that would not be possible, at any rate at present, and that is the difficulty in accepting this Amendment. I hope, however, that the hon. Member, who, as I know, has taken a great deal of interest and done a great deal in connection with this matter, as has also the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment, will feel that, although we are prevented for the reason I have mentioned, from accepting an Amendment of this kind, we do go a considerable way in that direction, and I think I can state without exaggeration that over the greater part of the country the object that the hon. Gentleman has in view will be covered. I hope, at any rate, that he will feel that we have gone as far as we really can in the existing circumstances, and that it is only for the reason I have mentioned that I am unable to accept the Amendment.

Mr. HARRIS: On the understanding that the Minister is going to use his influence in the direction I desire, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 7.—(Guardians committees and sub-committees.)

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 6, line 5, to leave out the words "unless the Minister for some special reason otherwise directs."
Clause 7 deals with the appointment of guardians committees and sub-committees, and I wish there were a larger attendance in the House at the moment, because this is an occasion when the Minister is reducing his power under the Clause. He feels that the Clause as it was originally drawn really gave too wide a power in the circumstances to the Minister, and the House will see that by a, later Amendment my right hon. Friend proposes that only on representations made by a county council as to the existence of special circumstances shall an exception be made in regard to the appointment of guardians committees. Under the Clause as it was originally drawn, it might have been argued that the Minister could give a direction the effect of which would be to enable the council to vary any of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Clause 7. Of course, that is not the intention, and it is with a view to providing that an exception shall only be made in special circumstances, and at the instance of an authority and not of the Minister himself, that these Amendments are put down. Some people would say that we are taking due note of what has been said in the House with regard to matters of this nature, and at any rate I think the House will agree that we are doing what is perfectly fair in making this provision.

Mr. MARDY JONES: On a point of Order. May I ask why it is that the Amendment standing in my name and in the names of others of my hon. Friends, to leave out Clause 6, has not been called?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Dennis Herbert): That Amendment has not been selected. I do not think I should be called upon to give reasons for not selecting it.

Mr. E. BROWN: The Parliamentary Secretary has successfully anticipated what we would say on this side of the House. Undoubtedly, there was one Clause in the Bill which, in its original form, might have been called the Clause of Henry VIII. It was more like the Statute of Proclamations than anything else. It really brought up the old philosophical distinction between the law and the decree. I gladly agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that it is a sign of grace that the Minister realises that this country, at any rate, is not prepared to give to Ministers undue powers. We do not want to see in this country people going to gaol for muttering against the Government, as apparently they do in certain other parts of the world at the present moment. This concession is all the more welcome because the first outcry about it came, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, from these benches.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 6, line 12, to leave out the word "twenty-four," and to insert instead thereof the word "thirty-six."
The House will observe that this Amendment deals with the number of members of the guardians committee. My right hon. Friend has given serious consideration to the representations which have been made in many quarters, particularly by some of my hon. Friends who represent important rural areas, as to whether it would not be possible to increase the number of members on these committees, so that the committees might include as many of the old guardians as possible. I need hardly say that it has been the desire throughout the preparation of this Measure to utilise the knowledge and the personal influence and touch which a large number of these men and women undoubtedly possess, and I know that there is a great anxiety that we should not do anything to deprive the country of the value of those services. We think that if we accept the suggestion, which has been made from more than one quarter, that the number should be increased from 24 to 36, that will give a committee of a proper size, not too large, but giving fair representation to a large number of these men and women, who undoubtedly deserve well of the country. It has been suggested that the number
should be unlimited, and that the county council should be able to appoint any number that it may wish to appoint. I think that that would be undesirable, because all sorts of pressure might be brought to bear on the council, and it might lead to the appointment of a very unwieldy committee. The figure of 36 which we have selected has been suggested by many of my hon. Friends, and we feel that, if the number be enlarged to that extent, it will afford a fair representation of the old guardians and a workable committee which will be able to carry out its duties efficiently and properly. My right hon. Friend has, therefore, put his name to this Amendment in order to meet, as we hope, the wishes of hon. Members in all quarters of the House, and we hope that the House will accept it.

Mr. MARDY JONES: It seems to me that the Parliamentary Secretary, with his usual tactics, is trying to give a sop to the guardians who are going to disappear. The Home Secretary announced at Question time to-day that there would be no more guardians' elections, and this Amendment to increase the number is really a sop to the guardians to enable them to use their experience as co-opted members. We object to the proposal on the principle that co-option is very objectionable in itself, and we could not possibly agree with it on that ground alone. Then, if you are going to increase the number in each division to serve in this way, you are going to increase the difficulty of getting suitable people. In practice, these divisions of a county into areas will need at least as many members as the areas of the existing Poor Law union, and probably double the number in many counties, and that is going to give you a very large personnel. The principle of co-opting people for this kind of thing is wrong. The guardians for many generations have themselves been elected to the existing Poor Law unions. In that capacity, they were directly responsible to the people who elected them and to the ratepayers and the needy poor. But by the principle of co-option they will not be responsible in any way, and this talk of utilising these persons, with their past experience, to guide the members of county and borough councils in Poor Law administration is a reflection upon those public bodies that they have
not the capacity to do the work themselves. It is also a reflection upon the persons whom it is proposed to co-opt that they cannot get on to these bodies in a public capacity as elected representatives of the people.

Sir E. TURTON: I am sorry the hon. Member opposite proposes to divide against the Amendment. So far as county councils are concerned, it was not intended or desired in any way to be a sop to the guardians. It merely says the maximum may be 36. It does not in the least mean that in those schemes you are to provide for the committee consisting of such a large number as 36. We have heard a great deal about the human touch and the sympathy that has been shown by the guardians in the past, and no words of praise are too great to give to those who have given their services as guardians in the past. But surely, with these new committees, you want the experience of those devoted people to assist these new guardians' committees in order to help them with their work. This was asked for by the county councils at the first conference they had with the Minister of Health, when they pointed out that in their judgment the figure of 24 should be taken away and 36 substituted. In the Brigg Union, in Lincolnshire, which in all probability will be an area for the purpose of a guardians' committee, you have seven district councillors, 13 local county councillors and four aldermen; that is a total of 24, without any possibility of putting on women or those with special knowledge of this guardians' work.
I am sorry the hon. Member appears to think the principle of co-option is adverse to the utility of this scheme. I anticipate that only those will be put on who are worthy of being co-opted for work of this description. It has also to be remembered that there are very large areas in some of these unions, and there will have to be a great number of committees and sub-committees for this work. There is in most unions the boarding-out of children. That means a great deal of work, and it means at present a special committee. In the Thirsk Union we have a special committee, formed principally of ladies, who give a great deal of time to it, and we have a system that is so very well managed that we have children from
Blackpool and other parts of the surrounding country. That will mean a great deal of work, and it will be impossible if you have a small committee for a large standard area to perform all their duties in the way that otherwise they can. I hope hon. Members will not press this matter to a Division on the assurance that the county councils consider it necessary in order to make this a workable scheme.

Mr. WEBB: I gather that this increase in the total number does not remove the limitation in paragraph (b iii):
That the number of persons so appointed shall not exceed one-third of the total number of members of the committee.
That is going to stand?

Sir K. WOOD indicated assent.

Mr. WEBB: Therefore, the increase from 24 to 36 will necessarily, at most, only mean that the co-opted members, instead of being eight, may be 12?

Sir K. WOOD indicated assent.

Mr. WEBB: I do not love co-opted members, but I do not think I should be inclined to vote against the Amendment, provided only that this restriction that the numbers are not to be more than a third, remains. If we are to have co-opted members, I do not so particularly mind whether they are eight out of 24 as a maximum or 12 out of 26. The principle remains the same for good or evil just as it was before. Under those circumstances, I shall not feel inclined to vote against the Amendment.

Mr. TOMLINSON: I should like to say how greatly I appreciate the concession which the Parliamentary Secretary has announced. Increasing the number in some measure meets the criticism I brought against the Clause previously. I wanted to see the committee invested with greater power in addition to increasing its number. That has not been met, and I am afraid that in rural districts there will be still quite a number of parishes in one union which cannot find representation on the committee, although the number is increased from eight to 12. But, seeing that it goes some way towards meeting the difficulty which I foresee will arise in rural areas, I should like to say how greatly I appreciate it.

Sir B. PETO: Life consists of compromises. This Amendment does not give
many of us all that we thought really necessary. The point of the hon. Member who has just spoken is perfectly right. In widely scattered areas it is very important, on the particular question with which these guardians committees are going to deal, that individual parishes should be represented. For this reason, the one thing you want is that the committees shall consist of persons who, individually and severally, have special knowledge of the cases that have to be dealt with. One thing we want to avoid is that this question of poor relief should become simply a matter of administration by officials. We have never had it in the past. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir E. Turton) paid a well merited tribute to the boards of guardians. They have done devoted service, not in the limelight but for the love of doing public service for the people who most needed it. We have pressed the view upon the Ministry that these guardian committees are not ordinary committees. If a committee were required to settle questions of policy, probably the best committee would he a committee of one, because that would avoid disputes and, given the right man, we should get the right policy.
Here, we have no questions of policy or grave matters of finance to decide, but we have to get together a body which will be sufficiently large and sufficiently elastic to meet the contingencies of all kinds of Poor Law relief. To do that, we want a body of more than 24 people. In my own Poor Law union we have at present a board of guardians consisting of 40 members. The proposal in the Bill would cut that number down by nearly one-half. Far more than one-half of that body, to-day, are very active members, dealing with individual districts and knowing the individuals who live in them. To propose, as a Poor Law reform, the cutting down of such a board of guardians as that into a body of little more than half, would, obviously, be a retrograde step. I am glad that there is a consensus of opinion in favour of the Amendment. We all want, what we shall get under this Bill, better Poor Law administration, and this Amendment helps to that end.

Mr. KELLY: I am sorry to spoil the opinion of the last speaker, if he thinks that there is only one hon. Member on
this side who is inclined to take exception to this proposal. I desire to raise my voice against it, and I hope that there are many other hon. Members against it. I cannot Took upon this proposal as a concession, as did the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Tomlinson). It is no concession to increase the number of people who are co-opted for this work and who are to be engaged upon the work of Poor Law relief which has been done by the boards of guardians. I pay my tribute to the work which has been done by the boards of guardians, and to the devoted service which they have rendered to the people who have had to seek relief. We are increasing the number of those who are co-opted for this service, who have not the responsibility to the electors that devolves upon those who are elected, and who would not have the same responsibility and the same regard, probably, in the conducting of their work in the rural districts. We know, often enough, the people who are co-opted for this work, and it is safe to assume who will be co-opted for the work in the future. The whole principle of co-option is wrong, and the mere increasing of the number from 24 to 36 in order to increase the number of people who may be co-opted is certainly not a concession, and not an advantage, but a disadvantage to the work.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: While welcoming the concession, I do not think that it is enough. There is no particular reason for fixing the number at 36. There is no particular magic in that number. We are justified in considering that it is not the idea of the Minister that the areas to be looked after by the guardians' committees should he any smaller than the present union areas. It is certain that if the union areas remain the same, we cannot maintain the same personal touch that we have now if the number of members is to be limited to 36. In the case of one union in my constituency there are 56 parishes and 72 members, and each member knows his parish intimately and knows every person in the parish. If one guardian is to look after two, three or four parishes, which may be three or four miles apart, it is impossible to have that personal knowledge of every appli-
cant for relief that he has at the present time.

Mr. MARDY JONES: I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that these people will not have to look after the parishes. They will have to look after the people in the parishes, and as there will be very few people in each parish applying for Poor Law relief, one man might very well look after a dozen parishes.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: There may only be few applicants in one parish, but if one guardian is to look after a number of parishes he will not know the people individually, as at present. Anyone who attends a meeting of a board of guardians in a country district will know that every individual who makes application for relief is vouched for and his case is explained by the member representing that particular parish. He knows the case personally, but if, in future, he has to look after three or four parishes, he cannot know each personal applicant individually, and he will have to go by what is said by the relieving officer or some other official. We are to limit the number to 36. No real reason for doing that has been forthcoming.
We have been told that we must trust the county councils. The Government are prepared to trust the county councils very far, in many ways. Why not trust them to decide the number to be on the committee. No one can possibly know the necessities of the county and of each district, except the county council which prepares the scheme. As we have trusted the county councils in many things larger than this, why not trust them in this? I am certain that if the limit of 36 were taken out, it would be easier to work the scheme. It would remove certain objections to the scheme. One objection is that the scheme will lead to bureaucracy, to our depending upon the officials and not upon personal touch. The putting in of the limit of 36 will mean depending upon the relieving officer and not upon the personal touch of the guardian. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter and to make the number unlimited. If he is not prepared to do that himself, will he leave it to a free vote of the House?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: As this will be the last opportunity to enter a protest against the scheme of co-option, I should not like to allow this opportunity to go by without expressing my objection to this part of the Bill. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Tiverton (Lieut.- Colonel Acland-Troyte) to talk about the county councils, and to say that we should trust the county councils to carry out their duties fairly and equitably; but the reply given by the right hon. Gentleman at Question Time, making poverty a bar to representation on the county councils, makes it perfectly obvious that in regard to the elected members of many county councils, and particularly in that part of England which the hon. and gallant Member represents, the representation will be drawn from his own particular party.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: There are a good many people not of my party on the county council and district councils of my county. I agree that they have too much sense in my part of the country to elect Socialists.

Mr. WILLIAMS: My point was that poverty is to be a bar to representation on the county councils. Therefore, not only shall we have the representation drawn from one particular section of the community in regard to the elected members, but the co-opted members, in all probability, will be drawn from the same layer of society. Consequently, democracy as we know it is not going to exist. It will be less represented in the future administration by county councils than is the case at the present time. Because of that, and the fact that notwithsanding our supposed perfect political democracy and equality in our franchise law, this part of the Bill is destroying the value of the vote given to tens of thousands of people, we should not be doing our duty if we did not enter a protest against this proposal, which is the third of a series of Bills or Acts of Parliament which are entirely designed to prevent one section of the community having any sort of representation. It is the poor who are obliged to apply for Poor Law relief: those whose income has never reached such a stage that they could prepare for a single rainy day. That section of the community which is always living within one week of the workhouse, are to have
no say in the administration of the Poor Law in the future. The provision as to co-opted members is wholly contradictory, and no hon. Member in any part of the House, who has any sort of belief in political democracy, could support it for a single moment. I hope that this Clause will not pass without recording our final protest on the matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 6, to leave out from the word "Committee" in line 27, to the end of line 33.
This is a drafting Amendment. The words proposed to be omitted are introduced as a separate Sub-section by a later Amendment.

Mr. HURD: Is not this a substantial limitation of the operation of this Clause?

Sir K. WOOD: If the hon. Member will look at the Order Paper, he will find that exactly the same words are incorporated in another place. It is more suitable for them to appear there.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 6, to leave out from the word "discharge" in line 34, to the first word "of" in line 37, and to insert instead thereof the words:
subject to such general or special restrictions or conditions as the county council may from time to time impose, by each guardians' committee or a sub-committee thereof.
This is to enable the guardians' committee to act through sub-committees. The House will be well aware that in practice boards of guardians in industrial areas deal with applications for relief through such sub-committees sitting for separate parts of the union. This is found to be more convenient in practice, and it is to enable this to be done that I am moving this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I beg to move, in page 7, to leave out lines 13;to 15 inclusive, and to insert instead thereof the words:
(v) the appointment of the necessary officers to carry out the work of the guardians committee, but the amount of salary shall be approved by the county
council, and no officer shall be appointed or dismissed without the sanction of the county council.
9.0 p.m.
Under the Bill at present, county councils cannot delegate the appointment of any officer to the guardians committee. My Amendment makes it possible for them to do so, provided that the appointment or dismissal of any officer is made with the sanction of the county council. Any sensible county council will, of course, consult the guardians committee before they appoint or dismiss these officers but as they will be more directly under the control of the guardians committee it is only right that they should have a say in their appointment. It would be well to give the county council the right to delegate these appointments to the guardians committee because I think it would make it much easier for them to run the scheme successfully.

Sir B. PETO: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir K. WOOD: I am afraid that I cannot ask the House to accept this proposal. It would be very undesirable to delegate the power of appointing and dismissing these officers to the guardians committee. They are officers, under the new scheme, of the county council, and it is almost impossible to visualise a satisfactory service in a case where some officers are appointed by the county council and others appointed by the guardians committee. I think the House will recognise that this is very undesirable from the point of view of the service generally. It would tend to set up separate sets of officers. I think the guardians committee may trust the county council to act properly in selecting officers and in proper cases to dismiss them. I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.

Mr. HURD: I should like to point out that, while there is undoubtedly something in what the right hon. Gentleman has said unless the Amendment is carried, you are putting some restriction upon the freedom of action and usefulness of the guardians committee. If the officers who have to carry out the work of the guardians committee are constantly looking to the county centre instead of to the committee with whom their duties are more immediately related you are depriving the guardians committee of
opportunities of usefulness which they otherwise would have. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has gone into the matter himself or has taken the opinion of the county councils, but if he looks at it from the point of view of the efficient working of the guardians committees I think there is a good deal to be said for the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 7, line 15, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that upon representations made by the council of any county that special circumstances exist in that county or in any part thereof the Minister may, if he thinks fit, direct that the provisions of this Section shall not apply as respects that county or part.
This is consequential upon the Amendment which I moved just now, and which the House accepted.

Mr. HURD: I should like to ask whether there is any appeal whatever in a case of this sort?

Sir K. WOOD: No.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 7, line 15, after the words last inserted, to insert the words:
(2) Where a district is not wholly comprised within one county, the portion of the district situate within any county shall, for the purposes of the last preceding Subsection, be treated as if it were a separate district.
(3) In appointing persons other than elected members of the county council to be members of any guardians' committee a county council shall have regard to the desirability of including persons who are members of Poor Law authorities immediately before the appointed day and other persons of experience in the matters to be dealt with by the committee.
This Amendment is moved to deal with what, I suppose, is the rare case of a county district being situated in more than one county, and the effect of the Amendment is to enable the part of the district which lies inside of the particular county either to be treated as a guardians committee area by itself, or to be combined with other areas in the county so as to form a guardians committee area.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir E. TURTON: I beg to move, in page 7, to leave out from the word "for" in line 16, to the end of line 24, and to insert instead thereof the words:
effective consultation between the public assistance committee and the guardians' committee of any area upon business relating specially to that area, and in particular shall empower every guardians' committee to nominate their chairman or other representative to be present at any meeting of the public assistance committee at which business specially relating to the area of the guardians' committee is to be transacted. Any person so nominated shall be entitled to take part in the proceedings at any such meeting so far as they relate specially to the area of the guardians' committee by whom he was nominated but not to vote.
The Clause, as at present in the Bill, only provides for notice being sent to each guardians committee of any meeting of the public assistance committee at which business relating to the area of the guardians committee is to be transacted, and then goes on to provide for a representative or chairman being present. It is necessary that the scheme should provide for much more effective consultation between the two bodies, the assistance committee and the guardians, than is given. There are a great many ways in which it is desirable to have consultation. We want, of course, on both sides, the best advice and assistance that can be given. I shall not trouble to point out the different objects that might be set out and probably will have to be set out in any scheme, but I hope the House will take it from me that it would considerably hamper any scheme if the provision was for only one simple consultation as set out in the Clause. The Amendment would make it much wider by providing for effective consultation.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(Disqualifications.)

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 9, line 30, at the end, to insert the words
or been maintained in any place as a pauper lunatic.
This Amendment is designed to give effect to the undertaking that my right hon. Friend gave in Committee, that a person shall not be disqualified from becoming or being a member of the county or
county borough council solely by reason that he or a member of his family has been detained in an institution as a pauper lunatic. By virtue of Subsections (2) and (3) the exemption will extend to members of public assistance committees, and guardians committees, and also to members of local authorities to whom Section 46 of the Local Government Act of 1891 applies.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 11.—(Amendment as to disqualification for pensions under 9 & 10 Geo. V., c. 102, and 15 & 16 Geo. V., c. 70.)

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 10, line 22, to leave out the second word "the," and to insert instead thereof the word "a."

This is purely a drafting Amendment to correct a clerical error.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.—(Recovery of Expenses.)

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
I move this Amendment, because I regard this Clause as the most dangerous and the most inimical to public health of any Clause in the Bill. I will first take the Clause as it stands unamended. The Clause proposes to alter the existing law in two main particulars. In the first place it compels local authorities to make a charge on all persons using their health institutions, with certain exceptions to which I shall refer later. In the second place, it fixes the amount that they must charge as defined in one of the explanations of the Clause. It is to
be deemed to be a sum representing the average daily cost per patient of the maintenance of the institution and the staff thereof, and the maintenance and the treatment of the patients therein.
I have made some investigations, as to what those sums amount to in the case of the voluntary hospitals in London, and, omitting some of the charges which I think will be excluded by these words, I reckon that they would run from £2 5s. or £2 10s. a week per patient in the case of a maternity home, to £4 5s. or £4 10s. a week in the case of a cancer hospital. What this Clause would, therefore, do in its present form, is to insist that the local authority should make a charge ranging from £2 5s. to £4 10s. a week
on the persons using its institutions. Not only is that charge to be made on the patients themselves, but if the patient cannot pay all the persons on whom a patient is regarded as dependent can be called upon for payment. When the Bill was in Committee I think it was the Attorney-General who explained that the persons who would be held liable would be persons who are at present capable of being made liable under the rules relating to the Poor Law. That would involve therefore not merely the father, mother, husband, or wife of the patient, but the grandfather, grandmother, son, daughter, grandson or granddaughter of the patient. Even now I am not sure that I have exhausted the list.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Yes.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The Attorney-General assures me that I have exhausted the list. The Bill, therefore, means that if any one of these persons can find the money required to cover this considerable charge for the patient, they must be made liable and the local authority must make that charge upon them. Of course, in maternity cases it will not be for more than two or three weeks but in the case of certain illnesses, notably cancer, it may run to three months, and the charge, therefore, would be about £50. I ought to say at this stage a few words about the exceptions. The chief exceptions are those relating to infectious disease. I understand that no actual definition of infectious disease has been included in the definition Clause and that the Ministry hold that the term will include what is commonly known as infectious disease to doctors, and also venereal disease and pulmonary tuberculosis, but that it will exclude surgical tuberculosis. That is the information, as I understood it, given by the Minister earlier in these Debates, and, if it be incorrect, I shall be only too glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's contradiction.
We, therefore, find this position according to the Clause as it stands—that persons entering one of these institutions suffering from any of these illnesses which are not regarded as infectious, will be charged, if they or any of their relatives can pay the whole of the bill during their treatment in the institution, but that any person suffer-
ing from venereal disease or one of the infectious diseases will escape payment. While the Bill was in Committee the Minister pointed out a further proviso to the effect that where the authority are satisfied that the persons from whom these expenses are recoverable, are unable to pay, they may be charged a smaller sum. It was stated from this side that that proviso would not exclude from payment a poor man, such as a labourer, in receipt of about £2 a week who had saved £40 or £50 in the course of his life and had that saving in money or in kind. We pointed out that he would not escape under this proviso and that, as the local authority would be compelled to charge that man, say, for his wife's treatment in a cancer hospital, his entire savings might be taken if the Clause went through in its original form.
It is necessary to remind the House of what the effect would be. Large numbers of working people, particularly the poorer working people, realising that if any of them went into a local authority's institution they might be mulcted of their whole savings, would go to any lengths to avoid entering such institution. Therefore, it is not merely a question of the hardship involved to these people; it is also a question of the grave detriment to public health which would arise if this Clause were carried in its original form. It would mean that persons suffering from cancer would keep out of such institutions as long as possible and would not go in until the disease had reached an advanced stage. The same remark would apply to a great many other diseases. In consequence, the Clause, as it now appears, would not only cause a heavy charge to be made upon working people but would keep out of institutions a large number of people who ought to go there in the early stages of disease. It would, thereby, do a grave injury to public health.
I am glad to see that the Minister has so far realised the force of our objections, that he has been at some pains to try to meet us. He has put down an Amendment which no doubt he will explain when the time comes but, as I am moving to leave out the Clause, I think I ought to take some account of the Clause as it would appear if his Amendment were carried. I do so in order to
develop my argument that his Amendment is not sufficient and that the Clause as amended by his proposal, would still be deleterious to the public health. His Amendment would enable local authorities not to charge the full bill, not merely when they are satisfied that the patient or his relatives cannot pay it, but also when they think it unreasonable that they should pay it. I am prepared to admit that the Amendment is a great advance on the Clause as it stands. It means that the local authorities will have an option not very different from the option which they have at present as to the amount which they will charge.
At present, I understand local authorities make charges of this kind—I have only one or two illustrations which possibly may not be typical, though I imagine that they are. A local authority charges an artisan something like £1 5s. a week for a maternity case and £1 a week for a cancer case. Where they are dealing with a labourer earning about £2 a week they make only a nominal charge, perhaps half-a-crown or five shillings a week, except in maternity cases where money is definitely coming in for maternity. In those cases they make a larger charge. I realise that the Amendment of the Minister goes a long way towards enabling local authorities, in future, to do pretty much the same thing as they do at present and, as far as that is concerned, our objection to a considerable extent has been met. But I think that as I develop my case it will be seen that there is still a great deal of ground in regard to which this Clause, even as amended would fail to meet our criticism.
In the first place, with regard to the total charge which can be made, I still think that to include, as the Clause will still include, in the cost of maintenance, a sum representing the average daily cost per patient of the maintenance of the institution and staff thereof, and the maintenance and treatment of the patients therein, is too wide a definition. It covers in the case of a cancer hospital very expensive treatment and apparatus. Under those circumstances, some modification of that very wide definition is required to reduce the maximum charge below that which appears in this Clause.
In the second place I very strongly object to the wide area of relatives brought into the purview of this proposal. It may be reasonable that the patients themselves, if they can pay, should be called upon to pay such amount as may be reasonable. It may not be unreasonable that the husband and wife should be called upon to pay, but to bring in the grandfather and grandmother, son and daughter, grandson and granddaughter, as this Clause does, is spreading the net a great deal too wide. It is very unfair that some old man who has a grandchild who happens to have cancer should be mulcted in this way. It will be very much resented and rightly resented by the working people of this country that those distant relatives are to be brought under toll for the unfortunate illness which is afflicting someone so far removed from them.
That is not all. I want to lay stress upon the special case of the unmarried mother. In the interests of public health and of the future generation, we have learned that it is most desirable that any illegitimate child who is coming into the world—and into the world it must come, whether we like it or not—shall come into the world, so far as physical means are concerned with the very best chance for its own life and for the good of the community. If you have illegitimate children born under bad conditions, it is bound to be a heavy cost upon future generations both for their physical health and for their moral health as well, and that cost is going to far outweigh, even from the financial point of view, the little additional cost of taking proper care of their entrance in the world. It has been found by all the institutions which cater for maternity cases that it is most undesirable to insist upon the relatives knowing the facts with regard to an illegitimate birth. Therefore, the practice has grown up, which in the interests of public health is highly desirable, that the unmarried mother is allowed to go into one of the institutions and have her confinement and that the facts are kept as secret as possible and even her own relatives, if she does not wish it, are not told about it. If you have the provision in this Clause that, if the patient herself is unable to pay—and most of these unmarried mothers are not able to pay—you are going to the father and mother and, if they cannot
pay, to the grandfather and grandmother in order to tell them all about it, then you are going to do something highly undesirable for the public health.
You are not going to get much money out of this, but you will bring it about that the unmarried mother will not go into your institutions to be delivered of her child. She will go back to her old ways of secrecy. Illegitimate children will be born under most unsatisfactory conditions. In many cases attempts will be made to get rid of the child. You will have a much greater nervous strain upon the unmarried mother which will in some cases lead to her trying to do away with the child in the moment of childbirth, when she is hardly responsible for her actions. You will have children brought into the world under conditions unsatisfactory for their health and in every conceivable way you will put back the clock of progress in our modern views as to how these cases should be treated. Therefore, in my opinion, even in its amended form, this Clause is open to very grave objection, and I hope that the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary will see his way to accepting my Amendment and to deleting the Clause. If that be too much, and possibly it is, then I hope that they will not rest content with the Amendment which is down in the name of the Minister of Health, but that they will go further to meet the objections which I have raised.
I will just repeat them quite shortly. First of all, there is the objection that the maximum Burn to be met is too large. It covers the maintenance of the institution and the staff and involves, in particular in the case of cancer institutions, too big a maximum amount. The second point is that, in attempting to recover payment, the net is spread too wide with regard to relatives of the patient. The third point is that, with regard to maternity cases, there is very grave danger that the Clause, even in its amended form, will keep the unmarried mother out of these valuable institutions which would be a calamity. I hope, therefore, that on all these three grounds the Minister will consider whether he cannot go a little further than he has done in the Amendment which stands in his name.

Mr. MARCH: I beg to second the Amendment. I would like to add one or
two points to those which my hon. Friend has put forward. As things are at present, if a person meets with an accident in the street and is taken to a hospital and the hospital is fairly full and he is then transferred to a guardians' institution, these persons will be responsible for their keep whether it is a wife or daughter or anyone of that kind. The same thing is happening in connection with persons who are suffering from cancer. People go to a hospital for treatment and advice, and frequently they pay in a voluntary hospital for weeks and weeks. Then the case gets so bad that it is impossible for the hospital authorities to do them any good. They are either transferred home or to the guardians' institution. It would be a very heavy thing for poor people to have to bear the expense, especially the amount that has been mentioned, which takes into account all the charges for staff and upkeep of the institutions. Many people would sooner stay at home and suffer than have that large liability placed upon them.
Then there is the question of the maternity and child welfare benefit. Some little time ago we heard the Minister stating that this kind of treatment was becoming very popular, but this kind of treatment will soon get unpopular if people have to pay these amounts to go to an institution. It is all very well for the Minister to say that the local authority will treat these matters lightly and charge what they think is reasonable, but, of course, they will be the people to say what is reasonable, and not the people who will have to pay. The result will be that many of these people will refrain from going into these institutions for their confinement and will stay at home, where it is very inconvenient, and we shall have more deaths of children than there are at the present time; and all the good work that has been done to bring about better health among both mothers and children will be put back by the action of the Minister in this Clause.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), who moved this Amendment, was, I think, unduly apprehensive as to this Clause. He described it as a Clause detrimental to the public health, and he said it was
a dangerous Clause. What is the reason for this Clause, and what is its object? I should have thought it was perfectly plain that the reason for this Clause is brought about by the alterations which we shall be making by the transference from the guardians of their institutions to the larger local authorities of the country; and unless we had this Clause we should have a position like this, that in cases of Poor Law administration, the local authority would be under an obligation to charge a pauper for treatment, while in cases of institutions where people did not come under the operation of the Poor Law, the local authority would have no such duty cast upon them. If we accepted the suggestion which the hon. Member has made, we should be in the impossible position that the local authority would have to charge a person who is a pauper, and there would he no charge on the person who is able to pay. The obvious reason for this Clause is to assimilate the position, so that in all cases, except cases of infectious disease, where persons can reasonably afford to make payments to the local authorities for the treatment that they receive, they shall make an adequate and proper payment.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That is what the Minister is going to say, but it is not what the Clause says now.

Sir K. WOOD: How one can reasonably say, having regard to the meaning of the English language, that such a Clause is detrimental to the public health or that it is a dangerous Clause, I cannot conceive. I suggest that it is a Clause in keeping with our English character and qualities, that it is a Clause which the people themselves would desire. I always think the Socialist party know very little of the habits and desires of the people. I doubt that the average man and woman in this country want to receive treatment without payment when they can reasonably afford to make it, and I totally dissent, as I so constantly do, from the views put forward by the Socialist party, who have such a limited knowledge of the qualities and the aspirations of our people. The hon. Gentleman also objected because the Clause made provision for the payment of certain expenses which would be too heavy, but he made no statement as to how the particular enumeration of the cost, as found
in the Clause, was incorrect. What we say is, first, that
the expenses incurred by the council or authority in providing for the maintenance of a person in an institution shall, in respect of each day of maintenance in the institution, be deemed to be a sum representing the average daily cost per patient of the maintenance of the institution and the staff thereof and the maintenance and treatment of the patients therein.
Secondly, we say—and this is a matter which I treat on the basis of my right hon. Friend's Amendment being incorporated in the Bill—that when you have done that and have had regard to what is a reasonable enumeration of the proportion of the expenses to be paid, if a person cannot pay that amount, then it shall be such reasonable sum, having regard to the financial circumstances, as he or she can be expected to pay. What could be fairer and more just than that? I invite the hon. Member, by means of some Amendment, to say in what particular way that enumeration of the cost could be otherwise more satisfactorily and more justly arrived at.
Then I come to the second point which the hon. Gentleman put forward. He says that the net is spread too wide, and that we are trying to make too many people responsible for the unhappy person who has received treatment. This is not criticism of this Clause; it is criticism of the existing law, and the hon. Gentleman has not looked recently at what the existing law is. If he will look into the Poor Law Act, 1927, Section 41, he will see exactly defined the liability to relieve and maintain relatives. Is that an excessive duty or one of which the average person could complain if he were a just person and wanted to do his duty to himself and his family? Section 41 of that Act says:
It shall be the duty of the father, grandfather, mother, grandmother, husband or child"—
and I invite attention to the following words—
of a poor, old, blind, lame and impotent person, or other poor person not able to work, if possessed of sufficient means, to relieve and maintain such person.
I should have thought that that was a reasonable provision. At any rate, the hon. Gentleman's criticism is not a criticism of this Clause, but of the law, and is not a fair criticism which the great
majority of people would support. I have heard of no great mass meetings against this Clause, or of people objecting to pay if they reasonably can for treatment of members of their families. The last complaint of the hon. Gentleman was in regard to maternity. He said that this Clause will prevent mothers receiving the treatment which is so necessary in difficult and exceptional circumstances, and he pictured a case—entirely, I believe, out of his own imagination—of mothers who would be frightened away—

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Of unmarried mothers.

Sir K. WOOD: —of unmarried mothers being frightened away from nursing homes and institutions on account of this Clause. How unfounded such a suspicion is! There is riot a maternity home in the country, municipal or voluntary, which does not make a charge for their patients. How ridiculous it is to suggest that, because we incorporate in this Clause what is the practice of maternity homes up and down the country, we are frightening away, or in some way dealing some blow at, mothers who need treatment. Anyone who considers this Clause in a reasonable spirit, apart from political partisanship, knows that the Clause really embodies what is the practice of voluntary hospitals. They expect a person, who can afford a reasonable sum, to pay, and what we say in this Clause is that if a person in such circumstances can afford to pay for treatment, the local authority shall have regard to his financial means and ask him to make a reasonable and fair contribution towards his treatment. Such is the barrenness of the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman of this Bill, that he said that it was a dangerous Clause and difficult to justify from the point of view of public health. I invite the House to keep the Clause in the Bill, because it is a reasonable Clause and one that will commend itself to the great majority of the workers of the country.

Miss LAWRENCE: The right hon. Gentleman is proposing to modify a very important provision of the Public Health Act. Has he forgotten the explanation in the White Paper of the object and the meaning of this Clause? Under the Public Health Act these services may be free within the discretion of
the local authority, or they may fix a charge such as they consider proper. The whole obligation of chargeability is imported into the public health service from the Poor Law, and when the Minister read the existing law he read the existing Poor Law. He did not read the existing Public Health Act, which, as the Minister very clearly explained in his White Paper, this Clause is meant to alter. Under the Public Health Act, the local authorities are free to make a charge. They very commonly do make a charge. In the case of maternity hospitals, they very commonly have a charge which absorbs the whole of the maternity benefit and a little over. They make that charge a fixed charge which is not related to the expenses of the institution, and they remit it where poverty is shown. The point which I desire to stress is that this is an alteration of the Public Health Act, and it is importing into that Act an obligation of the Poor Law. It is changing the practice of all the local authorities who now administer the Public Health Act, and it is placing now obligations upon them. The Minister said that the Socialist party do not understand what the people want. Suppose that that be true; the public health authorities do understand what the people want, and they do not by any means all belong to our party. They are people in daily touch with the facts, and have optional powers given to them under the Public Health Act to charge how and what they think proper with discretion and judgment, and with daily reference to the wishes and needs of the people.
Not only have the Government imported into the Public Health Act the obligations of charge, but they have increased and made heavier the obligations of the Poor Law authorities. The Poor Law authorities are not now compelled to charge the full cost of maintenance if the money can be obtained. The Poor Law authorities never, I think, in the case of cancer got anywhere near that sum. So that this is not merely importing into the Public Health Act a Poor Law obligation, but it is placing an additional restriction and an additional obligation on the Poor Law authorities themselves. This business of chargeable remedies is a Poor Law obligation, and
not a public health obligation. Public health authorities are under no obligation whatever to go into the chargeable remedies, and they do not do so. The business of inquiring into the circumstances of the father, the grandfather, the mother, the grandmother and so on, is not undertaken by the public health authority, and is a new obligation placed upon them. These points are indisputable, and they have been slurred over by the Parliamentary Secretary, but there is no doubt whatever of the truth of what I am saying.
I come to matters which are more or less of opinion. Take the case of a woman who is told by the doctor that her confinement is likely to be difficult, and that she ought to go to a hospital. At the present time she knows that her maternity benefit and a sum equivalent to her keep at home will be the utmost that will be asked. I have inquired what has been charged by the voluntary hospitals, and it is about the amount of the maternity benefit, a charge very little more than would keep a woman in her own home; so that, with the health insurance benefit, it puts hardly any additional obligation on the family for her to go into a maternity hospital. That is the practice of hospitals: but they make remittances where the family is poor. But if you say to that poor woman, "Your grandfather is not so badly off, we shall come on him; your father is not so badly off, we shall conic on him," it is 10 to one that this woman, rather than cause any expense to her family, will say "I will chance it at home."
I will come to what really shocked me. The Parliamentary Secretary said there was no danger of frightening off the unmarried mother. I have talked over this matter with the experienced people of the Council for the Welfare of Unmarried Mothers. They told me that so great was the fear in these cases that their society, though badly off, frequently did not even allow the woman to claim her maternity benefit, lest by the scandal aroused they should frighten her away from the institution. They told me that very often the father of the girl was the person who was most concerned, and that they kept the secret from the father of the girl until the confinement was over, and she was in a more settled state. Now you say that before she goes into a maternity
hospital they are not only to tell the father and get a contribution, but are to tell her grandfather —her grandfathers on both sides—although this charitable society says these women are so frightened that it does not even insist upon their claiming the maternity benefit. These people are to have their grandfathers, and their father and mother drawn into the case, to be mulcted for her maintenance in the hospital. Is there any reasonable doubt in any human creature's mind that poor girls in that position will have their babies as so many of them do now? The death-rate among illegitimate children is enormously higher than the death-rate among other children, and I think we are unlikely to make any serious progress in the reduction of infant mortality until we turn our attention more from the legitimate children, among whom the death-rate is going down, to the illegitimate children. I have not spoken of the risk of maternal mortality among these unfortunate women, but that is a very important point.
Then I come to what my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. March) pointed out—and nobody speaks with more experience than he does—and that is the position of persons dying of cancer. That is an expensive business. You have the case of some old man, with his own pride, ill with cancer. He can die in his own home as well as in the ward of a hospital, it is true, but if he dies in his own home without the benefit of continual skilled nursing and opiates, he will die with very much greater suffering than he would die in an institution. Do you say—because no guardians will believe you, even if you do—that the knowledge that a charge will be made against the son or daughter or the grandson or granddaughter, people who can themselves just get along in life, will not deter that poor old man from going into a hospital? It will; indeed it will. It will be a deterrent, also, in a case where a woman may have something the matter with her and the doctor says, "Go and be X-rayed; do not lose a week." The woman's decision will hang in the balance if she knows that the charge may be thrown upon her relatives.
Who are the persons whom we exempt? I think this shows the conscience of the nation. We exempt people suffering from
any sort of infectious disease. Why? Because we may catch it. The Minister said something the other week about treatment for infectious disease being compulsory and, therefore, free. But treatment is not compulsory in all cases of infectious disease. It is not compulsory in the case of venereal disease, and when it comes to looking at this from the human point of view, from the moral point of view, is there not something disgusting in saying to the sufferer from venereal disease, however well off he may be, however much the disease may be due to his own fault, "You shall be treated free," whereas the poor old sufferer from cancer, or the woman who is going to have a child, is to be mulcted of the utmost penny? I have never seen a Clause so repugnant not only to humanity but to the moral sense of the nation.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. A. R. KENNEDY: I confess that I have felt a little difficulty with regard to this Clause, as it stands and without the Amendment to be subsequently proposed by the Minister, but not because I think it is unreasonable that persons maintained in an institution should con tribute a sum within the limits of their resources to the cost of their treatment. On the contrary, I think the majority of people would feel that it is reasonable that persons should pay for such treatment according to their resources. Mindful of the object in view, and considering the Clause as it stands, I have endeavoured to improve it and I have drafted an Amendment which appears on the Paper below the next Amendment in my name. The two Amendments together constitute a reasoned attempt to improve this Clause, first of all from the point of view that it was desirable to relax the rigidity of the Clause, though without affecting its object, and, secondly, with the object of giving the local authority greater latitude in regard to the charges they make and the circumstances in which they make them. I appreciate fully that the Minister, in tabling the Amendment which stands in his name, has endeavoured, so far as circumstances permit, to meet my objections, but I do not think his Amendment makes the Clause as good as I should have made it. However, the Amendment does go a considerable way towards dealing with
the situation. I think the effect of it, if not to tone down what I consider the harshness of the Clause, will be at any rate to give greater latitude to the local authorities than they would otherwise have had. In these circumstances, I shall support the Clause.

Mr. E. BROWN: I fear that the Parliamentary Secretary is incorrigible. My mind goes back to a triangular debate on this Clause in which I, with very great diffidence in the presence of the learned Attorney-General, ventured to criticise the Clause as it then stood. I said the fundamental trouble was that instead of breaking up the Poor Law the Minister was amalgamating or assimilating two codes of law, the Public Health law, and the Poor Law, and I said that instead of the Public Health Law prevailing, as in my judgment it ought to prevail, the Minister had made the Poor Law prevail. The learned Attorney-General, in his reply, said that was not so, or that he did not think it was so; but to-night the Minister has given the whole show away. It is perfectly true that he has skated over the objection, but in his first sentence he admitted that what this Clause does is to bring the two codes of law together. The Public Health Acts lay it down that a public authority—"may." It leaves it to the option of the local authority to recover expenses. The Poor Law gives no option; it makes it mandatory; if the money is there the guardians must recover it.
The Minister is endeavouring to bring the two codes of law together, and to make the Poor Law prevail. I regard that as a reactionary step. I cannot think that the Minister is happy in his mind. The structure of his speech made me believe that. I have always noticed that, when the right hon. Gentleman has not a very ready reply to a powerful argument, he dips into his book, which I call "Tit-Bits," and takes out some little tit-bits about the Socialist party or the Liberal party in order to distract the attention of the Committee or the House from anything that is under consideration. The Parliamentary Secretary, of course, has undoubted ability, but, when he does not use his ability hut uses his agility, I always suspect the strength of the ground on which he stands.
My objection remains. I agree with every word that was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) and the hon. Lady the Member for East Ham, North (Miss Lawrence). The difficulties would be very great. I am sure this is a reactionary step. The Government are going to lay it down in this Clause, which is supposed to be the health law, that expenses shall be recovered, and they are proposing to make it mandatory. What they have done is not to break up the Poor Law—I thank the Minister for that, and I would remind the House that his colleague on the Scottish Bill with regard to the same subject in another connection did claim that he was breaking up the Poor Law—but he is extending, over the public health services, in regard to the recovery of expenses from these unfortunate people, the old Poor Law, that has been so disastrous to public health in this connection. I am very glad, as is the hon. and learned Member for Preston (Mr. A. R. Kennedy), that, with regard to the word "reasonable," the Minister is making the thing a little less objectionable. But my fundamental objection remains. I am sorry that he is taking over the Poor Law and not the public health law on this particular Clause.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: As a medical man with some experience I hope I shall live long enough to see the treatment of disease according to need and not according to the financial capacity of the patient, and to see the break up of the Poor Law. But we have been assured by the Minister that at present the time is not ripe: that it would he impossible for this Bill to function and at the same time to break up the Poor Law. So we have the position that under the Poor Law the destitute poor or their relatives can be charged by the guardians a certain amount for their treatment and maintenance and that on the other hand the people who are not poor who are treated under the Public Health Acts can escape free. That is a very alarming position and to my mind it was undoubtedly penalising the pauper. We should all have liked to have got rid of the pauper charge if we could but not being able to do that—and I accept the Minister's words wholeheartedly on that point—that as it was not possible even to put all sickness for the time being
on the same level, he is making a charge for everybody according to their means. I would ask the House to remember that there is to be no increase of the present charge according to the Poor Law. We are not raising the Poor Law fees. We are not altering the Poor Law structure. They are to go on as they have been going on for many years.
I had for many years experience in an industrial practice and I had very often the experience of patients who had to go to voluntary hospitals and also to the Poor Law hospitals. I think I may say with confidence that never in the whole of my experience have I come across a case where any complaint has been made by patients or relatives of undue charges for hospital attendance, either in the Poor Law hospitals or the voluntary hospitals. The circumstances of the patient were taken into account; the circumstances of the relatives were taken into account and my experience has been that the people, when they have come out have been very grateful for what has been done to them. We are not going to alter that as I understand it by this Bill. We are simply going to put them all on the same level until the happy time arrives when we can remove the Poor Law disqualification for illness. I would suggest to hon. Members of the Labour party that they are perhaps unduly apprehensive of the dangers of this Clause. They seem to think that people will be afraid to go to the hospitals on account of the charge. As I have mentioned before in this House when people are ill money does not count. Treatment comes first and they go to the hospitals and they are only too glad to get there. I cannot for the life me understand why Members of the Labour party should have the idea that the Government, the hospital authorities, and the guardians of the poor, are simply out to rob the poor of all they can. [Interruption.] The suggestion is that the charge they are going to make, legally or illegally, is so high that the people will be terrified to go into hospitals on account of that charge.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to make any allegation of that sort. The great object of our Amendment is to leave the local authorities and the public health authorities in the locality with the option. Our
objection is that this Clause takes away the Public Health option and imposes upon them a definite course of action which we think is undesirable.

Dr. DAVIES: I was referring to the statements which had been made by hon. Members of the Labour party. The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethiek-Lawrence) said definitely that people would be afraid to go into hospitals—maternity cases and cancer cases—because of the charge that it was proposed to make. The hon. Lady the Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) also drew the same picture that people with cancer rather than go to these hospitals and pay this enormous price would stay at home and run the risk of suffering and I believe she said would suffer for lack of opiates and die for lack of treatment. But that does not happen. I never heard a case of any patient, pauper or otherwise, suffering from a disease like cancer where a patient did not get the best medical attention and good nursing and where everything was not done that could be done to give him relief.

Miss LAWRENCE: May I point out that it is now proposed to alter the law arid to impose new obligations?

Dr. DAVIES: We are altering the law, but we are doing nothing to increase the charge which at present exists under the Poor Law. That is my point. With a fairly long experience, I have not known these things happen up to the present under the Poor Law, and therefore I fail to see why it should be imagined that they will happen in future. I have more trust in the people of this country and in the guardians than to believe that they will allow people to be badly treated or over-charged. The fact that hon. Members speak as they have done leads me to think that they do not really understand or appreciate what is the position in this country. When startling pictures are drawn by hon. Members of officials going after the father, the grandfather, and the grandmother they are painting pictures which are not true.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. Member is misrepresenting what we said. Our point is that this Clause makes a
new situation which will differ from the old.

Dr. DAVIES: The terrible state of things which has been put before us never happened under the Poor Law and why should it happen now. We are bringing this system up to the present standard of the Poor Law. No one would be more pleased than I should be if it were possible to do away with the complications of the Poor Law, but that is not practical politics to-day, and we have to recognise things as they are at the present time. I ask hon. Members not to read into this Bill things which are not there because they are only upsetting the people of this country and frightening them by saying that once this Bill becomes an Act you will have those wicked guardians and assistance committees rushing up and saying "You cannot come into the hospital unless you can afford to pay anything from £2 to £6 a week." I am sure that this Clause will be of great benefit to the people. The ordinary decent working folk do not wish to be treated any better than the paupers are treated in regard to payment for medical attention.

Mr. GILLETT: It is absurd to imagine that the people who go into hospitals are all anxious to pay for their treatment. The Parliamentary Secretary said that people were only too glad to pay for their hospital treatment, but I think it is well known that of all professional men in this world the doctors are the class who have the largest number of bad debts. The right hon. Gentleman must know perfectly well that the voluntary hospitals have organised their charges, because such a large number of people have been taking advantage of hospital treatment without payment when they could afford to pay for their treatment. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that people are only too glad to pay for medical treatment in the hospitals, but we all know that nobody wants to pay a doctor's bill; in fact, nobody wants to pay anything. [An HON. MEMBER: "What nonsense"] It is absurd for hon. Members to say that people want to pay for these things, because they do not. None of us want to pay for things that we can get free.
What is the position in regard to the people who are forced to use these institutions? The right hon. Gentleman, having built up this piece of humbug, tries to apply it to a certain section of the population, saying that they like to pay. My experience is that when a man, the father of a family, finds himself in one of these hospitals, he may not be prepared to say that he is treated harshly, but what is bothering him is what is going to happen to his people at home, and then, on the top of that, he has the thought that he will have to pay so much every week towards the expenses of the institution. I am not saying that he is necessarily complaining, but it may be that he has hardly anything at home. I do not myself profess to have been through any such experience, any more than the right hon. Gentleman has, but I have come in contact with many families where the father has been in this position, and I know that what troubles the mind of a sick man in those circumstances is the condition of his family on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the question where the money is coming from for his medical expenses.
It is perfectly futile for the House to try to make believe that this is not a tremendous burden. Hon. Members opposite say that some contribution should be made, but personally I say straight away that I believe the only reasonable thing to do is to have all this provision perfectly free. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) has pointed out, medical attention in the case of certain diseases is already given free, and I would apply it to the whole system. I make no apology for saying that, because I believe it is the only sound and reasonable system. Now, however, we are dealing with the scheme that is before the House, and I think that anything that is going to tighten it up is a misfortune. My hon. Friend has pointed out the extreme weakness of the Government's proposals in the Clause as it has been worded, and the attempt of the right hon. Gentleman to ride off and say that this is a thing which does not matter is absolutely contrary to all the experience of life. Anyone who really has come in contact with it in the slightest degree knows that this is one of the greatest burdens which weigh upon families of the working class
in this country, and that at a period in their lives when they most need help, and when it is important, above everything else, that they should have the most generous attention that can possibly be given, and that the burden, if it has to be imposed, should be as slight as possible.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) used a word about my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary which I must say caused me a little surprise. I have not the slightest doubt about the complete sincerity and earnestness of the hon. Member who moved this Amendment, and I hope I need not say that I have no greater doubt as to the complete sincerity of the hon. Lady the Member for East Ham, North (Miss Lawrence). Both by their arguments and by their manner they showed that, even if, as I respectfully think, they are mistaken in one or two points, yet they are perfectly in earnest, and believe that their views are in the interests of these poor people and the unmarried mothers. I wonder what the House or the hon. Members would have said if I had got up and said that they were humbug; and yet the hon. Member for Finsbury seems to think that he advances the cause which was perfectly properly, and, indeed, eloquently advocated by the two hon. Members, when he makes against my right hon. Friend—who has as much right as hon. Members opposite to represent his views—a charge of that sort.
The hon. Member then made a statement which I think excited the surprise even of his own party, namely, that no one wants to pay for anything. I do not know whether that is the hon. Member's experience in Lombard Street. I believe that what we sometimes hear from the benches opposite is much more accurate than the hon. Member's statement that no one wants to pay for anything. Hon. Members opposite often say, with truth, that what we call the working-classes do not want charity. I will not say that I have as much acquaintance as some hon. Members opposite have with the conditions in which some of the poorer classes live, but I think that I may claim a little knowledge and acquaintance, and I believe that on the whole, provided they are not tortured by anxiety as to ways and
means, they do prefer to pay for services received.
Let us, without these irrelevant discussions into which the hon. Member for Finsbury has led us, consider for a moment the purpose of the Clause. The hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies), himself a man of great experience, as we all know, has expressed his views about it and made it unnecessary for me, even if time allowed, to say much. I think the hon. Member for East Ham, North does not quite face the point. The point here is that under the Poor Law at present there is a certain obligation. Under the new law, as laid down by this Bill, it will be within the province of these local authorities to administer certain medical services either under the Poor Law or outside it. If they administer them under their powers under the Poor Law, they will be bound to charge, unless we alter it altogether, and, under the other powers, they will not be bound to charge. The hon. Member for Finsbury cuts the Gordian knot by saying he would like to see everyone provided with all sorts of medical service that they may require free of charge. I think that that is an impossible solution. I do not believe the party opposite would tolerate that people who can afford to pay—I am thinking of people of substantial means-should not be asked to pay, and, therefore, it is obvious that there must be some machinery for compelling people who can afford to pay to pay.
The only question is whether you will have the variety of ways of dealing with the problem which will exist unless we level up, or, if hon. Members prefer it, level down, the practice so as to provide that when the authorities administer, as they will in the future, Poor Law and public health institutions, the practice in both shall be the same. I think, with the hon. Member for Royton, that it is convenient that we should have identity of practice, and I do not believe the least little hit in the world in the view that has been presented, that in the future there will be a harsh enforcement of the powers that public authorities in the future will have entrusted to them. [HON. MEMBERS: "There will!"] Nothing is so easy as to prophesy that things will he as they want them to be. When they are prophesying in that way, Members can make an asser-
tion, but, if we judge the future from the experience of the past, I see no reason at all for, believing that public authorities will be harsh. The hon. Lady says that at present there is many a poor unmarried mother who goes into a home and wishes to cover up her ease. In the future, voluntary societies and institutions will be just as free to administer to poor people as in the past. Public health authorities will not be driven to enforce harshly any rights that they have.

If people can reasonably pay, the public authorities will have the duty of enforcing a reasonable amount of payment under the new law, and I believe that will be congenial to the commonsense of the House.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the second word 'are,' in page 13, line 11, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 114.

Division No. 194.]
AYES.
[10.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Everard, W. Lindsay
McLean, Major A.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Falie, Sir Bertram G.
Macmillan Captain H.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid w.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent,Dover)
Fermoy, Lord
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Atkinson, C.
Fielden, E. B.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Balniel, Lord
Frece, Sir Walter de
Margesson, Captain D.


Barclay-Harvey, C, M.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Gates, Percy
Merriman. Sir F. Boyd


Bethel, A.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Meyer, Sir Frank


Bevan, S. J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R. Skipton)
Goff, Sir Park.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Ht. Hon. B. M.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W,
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Moreing, Captain H.


Brass, Captain W.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph,


Briggs, J. Harold
Grotrian, H. Brent
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Briscoe, Richard George
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Brittain, Sir Harry.
Hall capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hamilton, Sir George
Oakley, T,


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hanbury, C.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Bullock, Captain M.
Harland, A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Burman, J. B.
Hartington, Marquees of
Perring, Sir William George


Campbell, E. T.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Carver, Major W. H.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pilcher, G.


Cayzer, sir C. (Chester, City)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Power, sir John Cecil


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth,S.)
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd,Henley)
Pownall, sir Assheton


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Raine, Sir Walter


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G,
Ramsden, E.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Christie, J. A.
Horilck, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Remer, J. R.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hume, Sir G. H.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Chts'y)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hurd, Percy A.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hurst, Gerald B.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Ropner, Major L.


Colman, N. C. D.
Iveagh, Countess of
Ross, R. D.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Ruggles-Brise. Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Cooper, A. Duff
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Rye, F. G.


Cope, Major Sir William
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Salmon, Major I.


Couper, J. B.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sendeman, N. Stewart


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Lamb, J. Q.
Senders, Sir Robert A.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sandon, Lord


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Loder, J. de V.
Savery, S. S.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Long, Major Eric
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Dawson, Sir Philip
Looker, Herbert William
Shepperson, E. w.


Duckworth, John
Laugher, Lewis
Skelton, A. N.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lumley, L. R.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n A Kinc'dine, C.)


Edwards, J, Hugh (Accrington)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Elite, R. G.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


England, Colonel A.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Stanley, Lord (Fyide)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Stanley, Hon. D. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P,
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Storry-Deans, R.
Waddington, R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Warrender, Sir Victor
Womerslay, W. J.


Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C,
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Woodcock, Colonel H, C.


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Wragg, Herbert


Tasker, R. Inigo.
Watts, Sir Thomas



Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wells, S. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Tomlinson, R. P.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Mr. Penny and Major the Marquess of Titchfield.


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Williams, Com. C, (Devon, Torquay)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Halt, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Potts, John S.


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Purcell, A. A.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hardie, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barr, J.
Harris, Percy A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hayday, Arthur
Scrymgeour, E.


Bellamy, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scurr, John


Benn, Wedgwood
Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Bondfield, Margaret
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles w.
Hollins, A,
Shinwell, E.


Briant, Frank
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Broad, F. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bromfield, William
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Slesser, Sir Henry, H.


Bromley, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Snell, Harry


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stamford, T. W.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Charleton, H. C,
Kelly, W. T.
Sullivan, J.


Clarke, A. B.
Kennedy, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Cluse, W. S.
Lawrence, Susan
Taylor, R. A.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawson, John James
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Compton, Joseph
Lee, F.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lindley, F. W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Crawfurd, H. E.
Longbottom, A. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Duncan, C.
Lowth, T.
Townend, A. E.


Dunnico, H.
Lunn, William
Viant, S. P.


Edne, Sir William
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mackinder, W.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Gardner, J. P.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wellock, Wilfred


Gibbins, Joseph
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Welsh, J. C.


Gillett, George M.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wiggins, William Martin


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
March, S.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cant.)
Morris, R. H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenall, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Palin, John, Henry
Windsor, Walter


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Paling, W.



Groves, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Hayes.

It being after half-past Ten of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th December, successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given to that part of the Bill to be con-eluded at half-past Ten of the Clock at this day's Sitting.

Amendment made:

In page 13, leave out from the word "recoverable" in line 11, to the word "to," in line 13, and insert instead thereof the words:
cannot reasonably, having regard to their financial circumstances be required,"—[Sir K. Wood.]

CLAUSE 17.—(Application to London.)

Amendment made:

In page 15, line 44, after the word "with," insert the words:
in the case of the assessment committee for a metropolitan borough."—[Sir K. Wood.]

CLAUSE 21.—(Conversion of registration officers into salaried officers.)

Amendment made:

In page 20, line 12, after the word "by," insert the words "or payable to"-[Sir K. Wood.]

CLAUSE 22.—(Power to increase statutory fees.)

Amendment made:

In page 21, line 10, after the word "by," insert the words "or payable to"—[Sir K. Wood.]

Ordered, "That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.—[Sir K. Wood.]

Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — CORPORATION OF LONDON (BRIDGE) BILL (By Order).

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. E. C. GRENFELL: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
When I put my name to this Bill, I thought that it was, and I still believe that it is, a simple Bill which would meet with approval. I saw no guile in the Bill. As I understood it, it was simply a Bill for postponing for two years the construction of the bridge. It was only in the last three days that, by receiving several notices from many eminent friends of mine on these benches, from Members on the Labour side and on the Liberal side, I understood the Bill was to be a bone of contention. Further, when the "Times" newspaper in the last two days devoted no less than four columns to the subject, including a leading article, I felt that I had misunderstood the Bill and that perhaps it was not as simple as it seemed. But this is not so. The Bill is simply one asking the House to allow another two years for consideration of this very intricate problem of cross-river traffic. I can assure the House that it was never intended, and it is not intended, that the Bill should mean that the bridge should be built in the next two years or that it should be even commenced in the next two years, because no plans that have been evolved have met with general approval.
I ask the House to consider for a few minutes the history of this Bill. The Bill was passed in 1911. That gave time enough, 10 years, to build two bridges across the Thames. The Bill committed the City to housing the people
displaced by those bridges. From that moment misfortune and delay have dogged the steps of this poor little Bill. Two bridges were to be built, one after the other. One bridge was built in due course. A few years after the Bill was passed the War occurred, and nothing was done for four years. That is understandable by everybody. After the War the land which the city had bought, much of it consisting of slum areas, was to be given over to the City to be built upon in order to get rid of these slum dwellings. When the land was purchased in 1915 an arrangement was concluded with the Peabody Trustees, a philanthropic body occupied in housing the poorer classes or the artisan classes. At the same time the Ministry of Munitions took possession of that land and held it for eight years. That was not the fault of the Corporation. During that period the Peabody Trustees, who were going to put up these buildings, found they could not build there—that they could not get the land—and they spent the money elsewhere. Six hon. Members on this side of the House have sent round a circular letter indicating six points on which they say the Corporation has failed in its, duty, and they also refer to these slum areas. The leading Member of these six is the right hon. Baronet the Member for Hammersmith (Sir W. Bull), and I would point out to him that, as the Peabody Trustees were unable to spend that money in remedying this particular slum area, the money intended for that purpose was actually spent in Hammersmith. That, I think, leaves the hon. Member without any right to complain.
I take the six points raised by these six hon. Members, and I would point out that in nearly every case their objections fall to the ground. The first point is that the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's are advised that any bridge construction near the Cathedral would be a danger to its security and its amenities, either by the construction itself or its consequences. We are only dealing to-night with the Bill as it is printed, and on behalf of the Corporation I assure the House that for two years not one building will be put up and no excavation will be made and no vibration can therefore be caused. The Corporation will not do anything in the course of the next two years either to build or
to pull down any building. I think that answers the objection of these six gentlemen and of the body controlling St. Paul's, to the effect that the Bill will damage that edifice. If nothing is done, no blame can attach to the Corporation. Point No. 2 is that the Royal Commission on Cross River Traffic has definitely decided against the bridge and point No. 3 is that the Royal Commission recommended in its stead another bridge—Ludgate Bridge. May I say that neither a Ludgate Bridge nor a St. Paul's Bridge will be built in these two years and when my six hon. Friends quote the Royal Commission in the one case, they forget to quote the Traffic Experts Committee who strongly recommended St. Paul's Bridge and did not recommend Ludgate Bridge. I leave the House to distinguish between those eminent bodies. In any case, under this Bill, neither bridge will be built in these two years.
Further, it goes on to say that St. Paul's Bridge will increase the congestion in the traffic centres in the City. I am no judge of that, but the people who are the best judges, the Commissioner of Police in the City area, who has only been there two years and brings a fresh mind to it, and the Commissioner who pro-ceded him, who had been there 20 years, both hold that St. Paul's Bridge, if ever built, would not make for congestion of traffic to any extent such as would be caused by the Ludgate Bridge. They are men of experience, and are at any rate better judges than I am of what congestion would be. The sixth point that they make is that any bridge between Southwark and Blackfriars would, in the opinion of practical navigators and the Royal Commission, add great difficulties to navigation. I would point out that the three main bodies controlling the river, the Port of London Authority, the tug owners and the lightermen, have all agreed not to oppose this Bill, because they have an assurance that the City Corporation will build nothing, will put down no piers, will do nothing for two years until the Bill will of itself expire. I think I have answered all the objections of my six friends on this side. Another objection made to me in writing from the other side was that the Corporation had not rebuilt the slums. The land was taken by the Ministry of Muni-
tions in 1915, and it was not restored to the Corporation until 1923 or 1924. How could the Corporation have rebuilt, how could they have knocked down the slum area and rebuilt it when the Ministry of Munitions themselves held the land?
I will now return to the Cathedral question, because that is the picturesque point. When any mention is made of the Church or of its buildings, there is at once a popular clamour against what is supposed to be any danger of any defacement of the building by this House or by anyone in the country. If, as I say, the Corporation is going to do nothing in the way of building, of excavations, or any other such operations, then no damage or vibration can accrue to the Cathedral. Though I am not a member of the Corporation, I resent very much that any apparent criticism should be made on that body as regards that magnificent building, St. Paul's Cathedral. It is grossly unfair to do so. Everybody in this country, and especially in London, loves that building. I believe that the members of the Corporation not only do not fail in their love for that building, but they are as jealous of that building as anyone could possibly be. I resent, on their behalf any such accusations as have been made in the Press and by some of our Members.
The Corporation have deserved well of London for what it has done since 1911. It contracted and agreed to build two bridges. It agreed to abolish certain slum areas, not in the City, not in London, but in Surrey, in Southwark. It did its best to execute that work. It was prevented by unforeseen occurrences, by the War for four years, by the arrangements with the Ministry of Munitions afterwards, and at last by 1924 it was prepared to complete the work. Then the Minister of Transport stepped in with his new Department and appointed a committee for two years to look into this matter. They made a report in 1926 which was in favour of St. Paul's Bridge. No sooner was that done than the Royal Commission was appointed. The Commission unanimously declared against St. Paul's Bridge, and favoured another one. I am not prepared to say which is right or wrong, but I ask that for another two years the Corporation may be given a chance to consult all experts, in this House or outside, all judges
of taste, of architecture, and so on, and to come to a conclusion, and I also ask that, after they have been delayed in completing all their operations for about 15 years, they should be given a fair chance of putting through the work they contracted to do. If it is decided at the end of two years that they are not to go on, well and good. They have spent £1,250,000 on these works, and part of that will be definitely lost if St. Paul's Bridge is not executed, and they will be left with half their buildings, which they may be able to sell, but they are prepared to do that. They are also prepared, I believe, under certain conditions to abolish the slums and rebuild them.
I ask whether it is reasonable to adopt the attitude that some of my hon. Friends have adopted. I was speaking to one of our Members yesterday. He was a great friend of mine yesterday, and I hope he will be a great friend to-morrow, but I may say that yesterday I thought him most unreasonable. I promised him that nothing would be done by the Corporation in building this bridge or in endangering St. Paul's. He said: "I want to kill this Bill. I want to kill it now, dead." This murderous attitude on his part is, I maintain, most unfair. This poor child, this little Bill, was stunted when it was four years old by four years of war. It was stifled for about five years by the Ministry of Munitions, which occupied the land, and it has been starved and choked for two years by a committee of experts, a committee on traffic, and a Royal Commission, and now my hon. Friend representing the combined English Universities (Sir M. Conway), representing light and learning, will not listen to any reason when I tell him that nothing will be done for two years. He says: "Kill the babe now; kill it dead." I ask for a two years' reprieve for this child, which should have grown up, but has been stunted since its birth.

Mr. SCURR: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
11.0 p.m.
At this hour of the night, I think the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell), who has put forward the case for the City Corporation, has done all that he-could by pleading, if I may say so, like a dove on
behalf of this little Bill. I am sorry to have to be somewhat in the position of an executioner, because, although I sympathise with the City Corporation in regard to the earlier days, when this land was in the hands of the Ministry of Munitions, I cannot sympathise with them now, considering the fact that all that land was given up in 1924. It is now 1929, and if it was considered necessary and essential to build this particular bridge on this particular spot, I think it ought to have been proceeded with and well on the way to completion long before now. Merely to come here asking for a period of extension, without any real arguments, except that the Corporation want to consider the question again, is not sufficient. The reason is that there has arisen some opposition from business interests in the City, from artistic interests, and from those who regard the question purely from a traffic point of view. Those of us who know Southwark Bridge, which was built under the terms of the original Bill, know that it is a bridge which leads from nowhere to the same place. In the proposed bridge we shall have the same problem over again, and it will bring into the City traffic with which will be very difficult to deal.
In opposing this bridge, I must not be taken to be under any obligation to make any other suggestions, but the Corporation has put forward four reasons which are absolutely valueless. My great complaint against the City Corporation is not in regard to the work on the bridge not having been put in hand, but it is that they have acquired in Southwark a very large area of land which had been represented many years ago by the medical officer of Southwark as a slum area. If this land had not been in the possession of the City Corporation, the London County Council would have been able to deal with it under their housing scheme, but the City Corporation stood in the way all the time. I appreciate what the hon. Member has said about the Peabody Trustees, but after all, that is a charitable concern whose funds are limited; the City Corporation is not a charitable concern, and their funds are not limited. They have a public duty to the people of London, and an obligation to the Borough of Southwark.
I want to draw the attention of the House particularly to the land
which is in the possession of the City Corporation along the line of this proposed improvement. I have no hesitation in saying that this is one of the worst examples of an insanitary area existing in the County of London. It comprises an area of three-quarters of an acre situated in Park Street, Southwark, at the corner of Noah's Ark Alley. When one sees some of the houses there, one would imagine that they were built after the Flood. It extends to the wharves and consists of alleys running in and out of each other. Some of these alleys are only three feet wide, some are 15 feet wide, and there are cases where the water closets of houses are within three feet of the front doors of houses opposite. This condition has been there all these years. We had from the hon. Member the admission that the City Corporation had the land in their possession for some years, and, when I remember that the City Corporation were able to carry out other improvements and their housing scheme in connection with the rebuilding of Spitalfields Market, I can only say that they have been neglectful of their duty in not putting in hand the shun clearance in this area. Particularly for that reason, and also because we have no guarantee that in the next two years this bridge will be put in hand, I beg to move the rejection of the Bill.

Sir MARTIN CONWAY: I beg to second the Amendment.
My excellent friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell) has given a brief history of some of the adventures of this proposal to make St. Paul's bridge. He did not go back far enough. The question has been under discussion now for exactly 75 years. That being the case, surely it is about time it was terminated. It was very rightly said that my wish is to kill the Bill here and now. I mean to kill this proposal for a St. Paul's bridge. No doubt there are other bridges that might be made; but the fact that, we once and for all turn down St. Paul's bridge in no way hampers the Corporation of the City of London from further considering the problem, if they please, for another 75 years. The whole question is part of the traffic problem, which is a very ancient one, but which is developing from year to year. The other day I noticed in Mr. Pepys's Diary
that he was trying to come from London to Westminster, and that there was such a block of traffic on the way that he found it easier to go down to the Thames, take a boat, and row up to Westminster Stairs. So the traffic problem is at least 300 years old. When I was a boy living in this part of London, more than 60 years ago, we used to allow one hour to go from Westminster to Shoreditch Station, and most of that time was spent in blocks in the City. Queen Victoria Street was then made, and Temple Bar was removed, and that solved the problem for the moment.
Now the City has got into an equally blocked condition, and it is almost impossible to get through it at any speed. That is in consequence of the east and west traffic. The proposal of the Corporation in connection with the St. Paul's bridge scheme is to pour into that east and west traffic an enormous north and south contribution. That north and south contribution will be, according to the estimates which have been submitted, a very considerable one; otherwise, why make the bridge? The traffic of the bridge will take a leap from Southwark Street and will come down to the level again at the southeast corner of St. Paul's Cathedral. There it will plunge right into the very heart of the east and west traffic which goes from Cannon Street to Ludgate Hill. Of course, the proposal then will be to turn the traffic round—to make a roundabout at St. Paul's Cathedral. Anybody who looks at the map will see how this traffic will impinge on the east and west traffic, and will see that nothing will solve the problem but to twist the traffic round and round St. Paul's Cathedral. Round and round it will go; there will be a vortex in which the cathedral will be an island. Imagine the condition of worship in the cathedral, when round and round and round are going omnibuses and trolleys and cabs and cars—all crashing around it all day long! The place will be a perfect bedlam of noise!
Having escaped finally from that knot of traffic, only a few yards away the north and south traffic will crash into the east and west traffic which comes along New-gate Street and Cheapside. I noticed on a map sent to me by the promoters of the Bill the other day that the name of the spot where these streams of traffic
will merge together has the ancient name of the Shambles. I have no doubt it will be a very apt name for that spot if this bridge be built! We are not told whether the purpose of this bridge is to bring traffic into London or through London. If it is to bring traffic into London, it will be pernicious enough; but, if it is to carry traffic through London, then it will be setting at nought the experience which we have had all over the country. We have been spending millions making by-passes to avoid towns and villages, and now it is proposed, in the very heart of London, to pour in an enormous increase of traffic. By the proposals which this Bill involves traffic will be pitched down on the south-east corner of St. Paul's, where it will have to wrestle with the great stream of traffic going west. The whole conditions of St. Paul's Churchyard will be changed, not only by the roundabout arrangement, but by the fact that the buildings at the east end of St. Paul's will be knocked down and others put in their place. You will perhaps have St. Paul's Cathedral at the bottom of a sort of basin. Anyone who has been in New York will remember how Trinity Church, the ancient church of that city, is now in the bottom of a well. The surrounding buildings here will not be so tall; but the same kind of effect will be produced on St. Paul's if you range it about with modern buildings built as high as circumstances permit.
I have in my hand a statement which was sent to me in 1911—I need not read it—in which it is said that certain experts made examinations with regard to the effect of vibrations at present existing. We are not dealing with vibrations as they exist at present, but with what would happen if all this traffic were directed round the Cathedral. You would not merely have vibration from traffic going north and south and east and west, but from traffic criss-crossing, and no man alive can tell what the effect would be. You have not proved that such vibration could do no harm. That is my first point. My second point is that the 'new buildings which would arise on the site would probably have basements or Cellars, and you do not know what the effect would be. The other day the National Provincial Bank found that
cavities had arisen in the foundations of their building. The foundations of St. Paul's stand on gravel. Sand and gravel, so long as they are wet, form a very solid foundation, but the danger is that you might, by underground operations in this neighbourhood, drain away the water which makes the foundation secure. Nobody can say that this will not be so, but it is for the promoters to show that it will not happen.

Colonel Sir VANSITTART BOWATER: I think the senior Member for the City of London has put the case very clearly before the House, but there are one or two misapprehensions which I should like to correct. The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) seemed to blame the City Corporation for having done nothing in regard to this bridge since 1924, but that was not their fault. The reason for that was that the Minister of Transport asked the Corporation to postpone the scheme in order that it might be considered by the Advisory Committee in 1924. If the Corporation had then decided to go on with the scheme the bridge would have been built, and it would have been in use to-day. Owing to the War and in deference to the request of the Minister of Transport the scheme was postponed. It was unanimously agreed to in April, 1926, and the Corporation and the Bridge House Estates Committee were ready to go on with the building of the bridge as originally intended. In June, 1926, the Royal Commission again asked the Corporation to postpone the scheme. It will therefore be seen that it was no fault either of the Corporation or of the Bridge House Estates Committee that this scheme was not gone on with.
As regards the slum area in Southwark, there was an arrangement with the Borough of Southwark that in the event of this Bill being carried through the Corporation would do away with the slum area and build workmen's dwellings. If they do not get an extension of time for this Bill by the 1st April then this slum area will not be cleared by the Corporation and the buildings will not be put up. The Corporation have already spent £1,265,000 on property on the Southwark side of the river, and the hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir M. Conway) seemed to think that this scheme as regards the bridge
is cut and dried, and that the bridge was to be built in the original place it was proposed. It is nothing of the kind. All the Corporation are asking for is an extension of the Bill in order that they may go more fully into the matter. This Measure will have to come before the House again before anything can be done. I expect that every hon. Member has received a statement in support of the Second Reading and I would like to draw attention to the last paragraph but one, which says:
The Corporation have no intention of commencing the construction of the St. Paul's Bridge scheme without a further application to Parliament. They are now applying for an extension of time by two years in order to safeguard expenditure amounting to £1,265,000 already incurred, and in order to afford an opportunity for further consideration of the problem in all its bearings. A Bill may then be promoted either for an extension of time sufficiently long for the completion of the St. Paul's Bridge scheme or to authorise a new scheme of which some portion or portions of the authorised works may form part.
I think the House can realise that nothing can be done so far as a new bridge is concerned without coming again to this House, and that, in view of the fact that an extension of this scheme for two years will enable us to clear the slum area in Southwark and put up houses there, the House should support the Corporation in their request. It is a very small thing. They give an undertaking that they are not prepared to build a bridge or go in any way until they have come to this House again for permission, and any scheme, any design, any locality in which it was proposed to put the bridge, would have to come before the House for confirmation. In these circumstances, I hope that the House, if not as a whole by a large majority, will support the Corporation and give them this extension of time.

Mr. AMMON: I rise to support the Amendment and to put one or two other points that have not yet been put before the House. I would, however, draw the attention of the House to the fact that the arguments put forward by the hon. Member who has just spoken are mutually destructive. He has already told us that, if we throw out this Bill, the Corporation will not be able to go on with the slum clearance scheme, and in the same breath he has told us that they do not intend to do anything with the bridge
for the next two years. As the slum clearance is an integral part of the bridge scheme, it is quite evident that nothing is going to be done with regard to the slums on the Southwark side for at least another two years, so that we shall certainly be in no better position in that respect. The main points are these: In the first place, there is the threat to the fabric of St. Paul's Cathedral, and, if there be an element of doubt—and there is a great element of doubt among experts, engineers and others—surely the benefit should be given to the Cathedral itself. After all, there are certain fabrics, certain asociations, certain buildings in our nation which count for more than pounds, shillings and pence and mere materialism and commercialism, and that great fane is one of them. We have no assurance that the fabric will not be in danger; indeed, the balance of experts is rather on the side that there will be danger to it.
There are several other points which should be considered. Two Royal Commissions—the Fine Arts Commission and the Royal Commission on Cross-River Traffic—have condemned this scheme, and the House ought to bear that fact in mind. Then I would ask anyone to look at the map which has been circulated with the Bill, when they will see that there is no solution whatever of the traffic problem. It will be a very similar bridge to Southwark Bridge. Many of us in London know Southwark Bridge very well, and that, so far as relieving traffic is concerned, it is an absolute failure. There is hardly any traffic across it, and it is pitched out into a narrow part of the City, making confusion and congestion worse confounded. Exactly the same position will be created in regard to this bridge, and it will only intensify the present position. That can be proved by looking at the map and seeing what the position would be.
Another thing about which some of us complain is that there is growling up in the City an idea that the whole of this money of the Bridge House Estates has to be spent in the City of London. A tremendous sum of money has been accumulated, and it has to be spent somehow, and they are prepared to spend it regardless of any utility, or of the trouble and harm that it may cause, without giving any benefit whatever,
Many of us who are London Members, and other people in London, contend that that money should be spent for the purpose of London bridges as a whole, and should not be confined only to the City; and some of us are concerned, apart altogether from the arguments against this bridge, that it will have some effect in postponing further the construction of a Charing Cross bridge, which would do considerably more to relieve the traffic whenever it is built. For these reasons, having put the points as briefly as I can, I ask the House to reject the Bill.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: I think attention ought to be directed to the real issue in this case. It is not the merits of this Bill nor the possibility of damage to St. Paul's Cathedral. I imagine if there was any risk affecting the edifice which is dear to the hearts of all English people and people all over the Empire, no one would give a vote which would in any way create a risk. My point of view at the moment is quite different. It is wholly a question of expediency. I do not commend the Bill to the House on the basis that there are no dangers attached to it. All I say is that there is a prima facie case dependent on the fact that in 1911 the Bill was passed and in 1924, which is not very remote, the London Traffic Committee sanctioned the proposal. I do not say any more on the merits than that I concede that there may be a large number of questions to discuss upon either the expediency of bringing traffic by that route or the question of endangering the fabric of the Cathedral, though on that question one of the great engineers who was on the Advisory Committee is also the engineer of the scheme. The only point before us is this. Shall we give the Corporation the opportunity of a further investigation during the next two years, during which they cannot possibly build the bridge, so that if possible we shall not entirely lose the money that has been spent in the initiation of the scheme and in the purchase of property. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend seems to think £1,250,000 is nothing. I, as a Scotsman, am rather disinclined to run the risk of losing any form of expenditure and accordingly I would ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading in the full knowledge that nothing further will
be done without the sanction of the House in building the bridge and that the Corporation desires an opportunity for much fuller investigation which I am sure the whole public of London requires.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: The right hon. Gentleman has simply pleaded on a technicality that certain sums of money which have been expended will be lost unless this extension is granted. I cannot see the cogency of that argument. I can only suppose that the Bill is for the building of bridge No. 1 in the Schedule, therefore nothing but that can be effected by the passing of the and yet in the same breath they say they have no idea at all of proceeding with the Bill. But I apprehend that there is somewhere in the background some idea of proceeding with a bridge somewhere in that vicinity. I appear more particularly in respect of an interest which has not yet been mentioned. I mean those who navigate the river—the lightermen and the barge owners.

Sir R. HORNE: They have agreed to it.

Sir H. NIELD: No, at present they have no protection whatever. The traffic in 1911 was very different from what exists to-day. The size of vessels has doubled and the volume of traffic on the river has immensely augmented. Representations have been made to the proper authorities of the enormous food traffic that goes up and down the river. Hon. Members will remember that a few months ago a report was presented by a Departmental Committee of the Ministry of Transport in regard to the bringing of petrol spirit up the river to Purfleet, and the danger was so demonstrated that the authorities were urged not to allow that kind of traffic to come up the river beyond the existing limits. Nevertheless, there is a large amount of the traffic in barrels coming up as far as Hammersmith. Navigation of the river is already sufficiently difficult, and those who are interested in the river traffic have asked me to put their ease before the House. They say that another bridge will be wholly detrimental to their being able to navigate the river properly.
The plan with which we have been furnished beyond the limits of deviation of Abe bridge as proposed in 1911 brings the bridge within 14 yards of the middle of
the Old Change. One side of the Old Change is to be demolished. This House would do well to recollect that when Sir Christoper Wren built his Cathedral in the 17th century he found a running stream of sand at the north-east corner which baffled him for a very long time, and although I have no skilled experience, it seems to me that the difficulties which he experienced at that time may be present there in the event of any large excavations being made in that neighbourhood or any additional vibrations being occasioned. At the spot where the monument of the figure of St. Paul stands the difficulty arose, and that is the place, oi4 within a few yards, where this bridge will come.
I have been asked by members of the Chapter of St. Paul's to oppose the Bill. I have also been asked to oppose it by the London Society, which takes a great interest in everything that concerns London. Certain citizens who will be disturbed have, likewise, asked me to oppose the Bill. The light fabric trade will be dismissed from Wood Street and will be compelled to dissociate them-Selves from that part of the City with which they have been associated for generations. Why should we pass this Bill merely upon the plea that it is going to safeguard an expenditure of £1,250,000?

Mr. B. SMITH: The Traffic Committee, after giving very serious consideration to this matter for a long period, came to the conclusion that, subject to Waterloo Bridge carrying the requisite number of lines of traffic, or that Charing Cross Bridge should be proceeded with, they would have been prepared to get rid of the St. Paul's Bridge project. The right hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) is afraid for the navigation of the river. If he knew anything about it he would know that the present buttresses of Waterloo Bridge are a far bigger danger to traffic on the river than any proposed new bridge. We are not now discussing the merits of St. Paul's Bridge. We are discussing now a Bill for the continuance of an Act of Parliament that will lapse on a given date, and the City authorities are asking for an extension of that date for two years in order that further advice may be sought. Having regard to the fact that of two bodies, the London Traffic Advisory Com-
mittee are in favour of the Bill, while Lard-Lee's Committee are opposed to the bridge, they desire that further evidence may be taken, not as to whether the bridge should be in this place or in that place, but that they should have the power to consider the matter further, and at the end of two years they should be able to approach this House, when the House will be able to decide whether the bridge Should be proceeded with or not. I should have been glad had the City been able to say first in the interim period they would do what they could to get on with slum clearances in Southwark.

Sir V. BOWATER: They are prepared to do so.

Mr. SMITH: Does the hon. Gentleman tell us that if this Bill is given a Second Reading that the City of London is prepared to proceed with its Southwark housing scheme?

Sir V. BOWATER: I understand that that is perfectly correct.

Mr. SMITH: How anyone can oppose this Bill giving this extension of time with the possibility of more work for our people and the erecton of houses for the people of Southwark I cannot understand?

Sir HENRY JACKSON: There are two points I wish to make. In the first place I would like to give the House the assurance, on behalf of the Corporation of the City of London, that if this Bill is passed to-night, the City will proceed at once with the housing scheme for Southwark. Also, I would like to say that all the watermen on the Thames have withdrawn their opposition to this Bill.

Sir H. NIELD: I have a communication in my pocket, sent me so recently as yesterday, from the master lightermen saying they have done nothing of the sort.

Sir H. JACKSON: I give that assurance from the City Remembrancer and I think my information is a little more recent than that of my right hon. and learned Friend. All the users of the river have withdrawn their opposition because their views have been met. I make those two definite statements on behalf of the City of London. The Traffic Advisory Committee has been referred to. I have
been associated with the work of this body in connection with London bridges, and we had no hesitation in assuring the House that St. Paul's Bridge should be proceeded with. It is their definite opinion that St. Paul's Bridge should be proceeded with. They have not deviated for that opinion. Three bridges being together—Charing Cross, Waterloo and St. Paul's, Charing Cross is the ideal solution, but you cannot get that bridge built for another 10 years. You can get St. Paul's Bridge built at once. Therefore we advise the House to pass this Bill.

Mr. GARDNER: I had no intention of taking part in this discussion, but as it has proceeded so long I should like to give my point of view. I should be exceedingly sorry to see anything happen to St. Paul's Cathedral, but if the pulling down of St. Paul's Cathedral would render any public service I would pull it down because it could be rebuilt again. I am convinced, however, that St. Paul's Cathedral will be endangered by this Bill. The main consideration is that the bridge is supposed to be a remedy for the traffic problem. I suggest that it is only going to shift the problem further north and create a new problem in the Goswell Road and Old Street area. I must oppose the Bill. I am more concerned with getting bridges built in other parts of the Thames. When I was in Paris I saw the wonderful system of bridges there, and knowing what great facilities would be afforded to the citizens of London by a proper system of bridges, I am amazed that the City Corporation

should hang up all the money they now hold instead of using it for the citizens of London.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I would like to draw attention to the confusion that we are in now. We were told by the senior Member for the City that if this poor little Bill were only passed, not a thing would be built or done, that it was not worth talking about, and that it was a pure matter of formality. We now hear that elaborate clearances are to be made in Southwark, so that the bridge could be proceeded with as soon as the two years are over. The point is that the House is being trifled with, in that it is suggested that this Bill is nothing at all. We are definitely told that this is the proposal which is going forward, and we are either going to approve it to-night or not. If we do not put a stop to it now this same state of uncertainty, which is a terror to the authorities of St. Paul's, will continue. Only this afternoon we had here the Dean of St. Paul's, who said that the anxiety of the Cathedral authorities would be kept in existence for another two years if this Bill was not stopped. The public have contributed £400,000 for keeping up St. Paul's Cathedral, and if this Bill is to be proceeded with and this great traffic route run past the end of it, very serious danger, it is admitted, will be caused to the Cathedral.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 62; Noes, 81.

Division No. 195.]
AYES.
[11.43 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Alexander. E. E. (Leyton)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Ctn'l)
Savery, S. S.


Barr, J.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Shepperson, E. W.


Bethel, A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Skelton, A. N.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhitht)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Lougher, Lewis
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
McLean, Major A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Briscoe, Richard George
Macmillan, Captain H.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Brittain, Sir Harry
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Tasker, R. Inlgo.


Bromfield, William
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Burman, J. B
Margesson, Captain D.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Wells, S. R.


Colfox, Major William Phillips
Nicholson. O. (Westminster)
Windsor, Walter


Fermoy, Lord
Penny, Frederick George
Womersley, W. J.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Perring, Sir William George
Wragg, Herbert


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Pilcher, G.



Goff, Sir Park
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hanbury, C.
Raine, Sir Walter
Mr. E. C. Grenfell and Sir Vansittart Bowater.


Hartinqton, Marquess el
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)



Hayday, Arthur
Remer, J. R.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gardner, J. P.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Ammon, Charles George
Gillett, George M.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Balniel, Lord
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bellamy, A.
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Bevan, S. J.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Paling, W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Harris, Percy A.
Richardson, sir P. W. (Sar'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bullock, Captain M.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Carver, Major W. H.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Salmon, Major I.


Charleton, H. C.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Clarke, A. B.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)
Snell, Harry


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Kelly, W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kirkwood, D.
Tinker, John Joseph


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lamb, J. Q.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lawrence, Susan
Townend, A. E.


Duckworth John
Lawson, John James
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Dunnico, H
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Viant, S. P.


Edge, Sir William
Loder, J. de V.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Longbottom, A. W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Herman
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Lumley, L. R.



England, Colonel A.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Mackinder, W.
Mr. Scurr and Sir Martin Conway.


Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Words added.

Second Reading put off for six months.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Nine Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.